Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 28 February 2006, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and their elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

Mr SPEAKER: It is with regret that I have to inform the House of the death on 18 February 2006 of Heathcote Clifford Mallam, who represented the electorate of Dulwich Hill from 20 June 1953 to 23 January 1968 and the electorate of Campbelltown from 13 February 1971 to 28 August 1981. On behalf of the House I have extended to the family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

Mr Tony Stewart: Point of order: I bring it to your attention once again that members of the media took photographs during the House's observance of the death of a former member. That is most distasteful and unnecessary and I ask you to take some action about it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This matter was brought to my attention on a previous occasion. Instructions were issued accordingly and an apology was received. I instruct photographers that it is not appropriate to take photographs when members stand in their places as a mark of respect following an announcement of the death of a former member. I ask the photographer concerned to confer with the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms following question time with regard to this matter.

Assent to the following bill reported:

Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Bill

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have to inform the House that on 17 February 2006 Her Excellency the Governor accepted the resignations of certain Ministers. By leave I incorporate the list of Ministers in Hansard and Votes and Proceedings:

The Hon. Morris Iemma, MP, as Treasurer;
The Hon. John Arthur Watkins, MP, as Minister for State Development;
The Hon. John Joseph Della Bosca, MLC, as Special Minister of State and Assistant Treasurer;
The Hon. Patrick Carl Scully, MP, as Minister for Utilities;
The Hon. Michael Costa, MLC, as Minister for Finance;
The Hon. Joseph Guerino Tripodi, MP, as Minister for Roads; and
The Hon. Eric Michael Roozendaal, MLC, as Minister for Ports and Waterways.

I also have to inform the House that on 17 February 2006 Her Excellency the Governor appointed certain Ministers. By leave I incorporate the list of Ministers in Hansard and Votes and Proceedings:

The Hon. Morris Iemma, MP,
Minister for State Development;

The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC,

Minister for Finance,

The Hon. Michael Costa, MLC,
Treasurer;
The Hon. Joseph Guerino Tripodi, MP,

Minister for Energy, Minister for Ports and Waterways, and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Business and Economic Regulatory Reform;

The Hon. David Andrew Campbell, MP,
Minister for Water Utilities; and

The Hon. Eric Michael Roozendaal, MLC,
Minister for Roads.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I also inform the House of the representation of Legislative Council Ministers in the Legislative Assembly. By leave I incorporate the list of Ministers in Hansard and Votes and Proceedings.

The Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council will be represented by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Transport;The Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter will be represented by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Transport;

The Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs will be represented by the Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for the Arts;

The Minister for Health will be represented by the Minister for Education and Training;

The Minister for Natural Resources, Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Mineral Resources will be represented by the Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra; andThe Minister for Roads will be represented by the Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra

Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the Speaker's Gallery the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Commissioner Mariann Fisher Boel; the Ambassador of the European Commission, His Excellency Mr Bruno Julien; the Deputy Head of Cabinet of the European Commission, Mr Klaus-Dieter Borchardt; the Consul-General of Denmark, Mr Jorgen Mollegaard Kristensen; the Honorary Consul-General for Luxembourg, Mr Geoff Dunstan; and the Consul-General of The Netherlands, Ms Margarita Bot.

Mr SPEAKER announced the receipt, pursuant to section 78 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, of the following reports:

Report on Investigation Into Schemes to Fraudulently Obtain Building Licences, dated December 2005
Report on Investigation Into the Conduct of an Officer of the Local Court Registry at Penrith, dated February 2006.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr SPEAKER announced the receipt, pursuant to section 103 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, of the report entitled "Report to Parliament—Operation Whistler", dated December 2005.

Ordered to be printed.
The Clerk, announced the receipt, pursuant to section 4 of the Crimes Amendment (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Act 2002, of the report entitled "Review of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Act 2002 and the Summary Offences Amendment (Places of Detention) Act 2002", dated December 2005.

The Clerk announced the receipt of the quarterly report on the implementation of the New South Wales Government's response to the final report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Waterfall Accident—Reporting Period: October-December 2005.

The Clerk announced the receipt of report No. 9/53, entitled "Repairing to a Price, not a Standard—Report of an Inquiry into Motor Vehicle Smash Repairs under the Insurance Australia Group (NRMA Insurance) Preferred Repairer Scheme, and its Implications for Roadworthiness, Crashworthiness and Road Safety", dated December 2005.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 10 of the Legislation Review Act 1987, of the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 1 of 2006", dated 27 February 2006.

The Clerk announced the receipt of report No. 650/53, entitled "Study of International Jurisdictions—China, Spain and South Africa", dated December 2005.

Petitions requesting the removal of the $10 booking fee on pensioner travel vouchers, received from Mr Greg Aplin, Mr Ian Armstrong and Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition opposing any reduction in rail services on the South Coast, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting adequate commuter parking facilities at Hornsby and Berowra train stations, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with bus services in rural and regional New South Wales, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Petition opposing the removal of airconditioned school buses from the mid North Coast, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting amendment of the zoning policy to preclude fishing competitions, by both spear and line, in the Jervis Bay Marine Park, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition opposing large-scale developments in the catchment of Jervis Bay, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting changes in legislation to allow for tougher sentencing to fit the crime, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition opposing the proposed anti-discrimination (religious tolerance) legislation, received from Mr Gerard Martin.

Petition requesting public camping and access rights to forests, rivers and waterways, received from Mr Adrian Piccoli.

Petition requesting mandatory statistical reporting of abortions, legislative protection of foetuses of 20 weeks gestation, and availability of resources for post-abortion follow-up, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting the allocation of more police resources to the Shoalhaven Local Area Command, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting a strong police presence in Cronulla, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Petition requesting funding for the provision of a school assembly hall at Mount Austin Public School, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting the installation of airconditioning in all learning spaces in public schools in the Wagga Wagga electorate, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting the installation of airconditioning in all classrooms and the library of Colo High School, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petitions opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from Ms Alison Megarrity and Mr Andrew Stoner.
Petitions objecting to the criteria for country cancer patients to qualify for the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock and Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition requesting funding for the establishment of a dedicated mental health service in the Shoalhaven, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petitions requesting funding for BreastScreen NSW, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock and Mr Michael Richardson.

Petition requesting the implementation of a community midwifery program, received from Mr George Souris.

Petition requesting that Kempsey District Hospital be maintained at level 4, and requesting the construction of a new hospital for Kempsey, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition opposing the proposal for the Somersby Fields Sandmining project, received from Ms Marie Andrews.

Petition opposing the proposal by Kylor to rezone residential land in Manyana, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting adjustment of funding to ensure viability of community-based preschools, received from Mr Peter Draper.

Petition opposing any restrictions on recreational fishing in mid North Coast waters, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Petition opposing the extraction of water from the Shoalhaven River to support Sydney's water supply, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition opposing the construction of a desalination plant at Kurnell, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Petition opposing the fluoridation of the Hastings water supply, received from Mr Robert Oakeshott.

Petition opposing a 27 per cent rate increase proposed by Shoalhaven City Council, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.
Petition requesting that the B3 option be chosen as the preferred route for the F3 extension to Raymond Terrace, received from Mr John Bartlett.

Petition requesting an appropriate bypass for Nowra, after community consultation, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting funding for the immediate upgrade of The Rock/Bullenbong Road, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting funding for implementation of the Old Northern and New Line roads strategic route development study, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Petition requesting that the RTA not register motorcycles to riders who are not legally licensed to ride them, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Given his cross-city tunnel crisis, his desalination debacle, his rundown of police numbers, his bus, train and ferry failures, his $700 million in new taxes, his $116 million school maintenance backlog, his failure to fund hospitals, and the collapse of the State budget, when will he finally admit he is out of his depth?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: When the audit report and the Government's action plan were delivered last week, what did the Leader of the Opposition have to say? He was confronted at his press conference with his promise that 29,000 public sector jobs would go, and with the audit figures giving a break-up of the State public service. They showed that 80 per cent of the 330,000 in the public sector are frontline staff, and that the remaining 60,000 are not involved in frontline services or in supporting frontline staff—nurses, teachers and police. That is, the Leader of the Opposition wants to sack nearly 30,000 of those 60,000. When confronted with the facts, what was his response? It was, "Oh, um, um, I think the figures are wrong, but I'll go away and check. Maybe we will have to revise down our promise to sack nearly 30,000. But, in any event, I would not believe the figures that were in the audit anyway."

We heard nothing from the Leader of the Opposition about any Coalition plan to manage the State's economy. When the audit report came down and we had the Government's response, what sort of endorsement was there from the Opposition? None—just more criticism, more running down of the New South Wales economy, more running down of New South Wales. Never do Coalition members have anything positive to say about this State or its economy. Yet business groups were backing the Government's plan—as was Gary Moore of the Council of Social Service of New South Wales—as responsible, especially regarding targeted assistance, when it comes to payroll tax deductions in areas of above-average unemployment in the State. In fact, what the Government announced last week was the fourth tax cut in seven months—all about supporting the economy, driving activity. In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition never misses an opportunity to try to drag it down. The day the audit report arrived Standard and Poor's said this about the New South Wales economy and the State budget:

New South Wales, by its very characteristics, tends to go for a slow, steady growth, not relying on the booms in mineral prices of Western Australia and Queensland.

We do not sit on the edge, fretting about how a crash in mineral prices would affect our economy. Standard and Poor's gave a resounding endorsement of the strength of the New South Wales economy, the Government's policy and the measures it has taken. The endorsement that the Government got last week was just on the economy and the budget. Of course, we did not get any support from the Coalition in trying to stop the cheating by Canberra. Not one word was there from the Leader of the Opposition to support his own constituency by stopping the cheating in Canberra. What did Mr Bethwaite of Australian Business Ltd say about the GST rip-off? He confirmed the view of business that New South Wales continues to subsidise the States of Western Australia and Queensland. One of the challenges imposed on the budget results from the cheating that goes on with the distribution of the GST split-up.

Mr John Turner: Bob Carr raced to Canberra to sign it.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, but who has power under Commonwealth legislation to change it? It is the Federal Treasurer. He will not do that, because the Federal Government is buying the votes of the smaller States with the dollars of New South Wales taxpayers. That is why the Howard Government will not change the distribution of the GST. That is why he does not care. That is why Coalition members opposite will never stand up and support New South Wales taxpayers. Let us have a look at the legislation. Section 9 of the GST legislation titled A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Relations) Act 1999 provides:

The relativity factor—

That is, the distribution—

for a State for GST is the factor determined in writing by the [Federal] Treasurer.

That is enshrined in legislation. There are plenty of other examples to demonstrate that distribution of the GST is enshrined in legislation to enable Peter Costello and John Howard to change the distribution formula. But they will not! I repeat: last week we had the resounding endorsement of the Government's plan.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We had an endorsement of the plan last week, but what do we have from the members opposite? We have a promise of 29,000 public services job cuts—nurses, teachers and police. There is no question about that. The audit document has the split-up of the State public sector, and there is no way that those opposite can implement their promises without sacking nurses, teachers and police—no chance at all. How will Spendthrift Peter pay for the $22 billion in spending promises and the promise of denying themselves every revenue measure available? At the last count, the spendometer reached $22 billion. There is one real danger to the New South Wales economy and it is the Leader of the Opposition. If he ever got his hands on the Treasury benches, one thing is sure: he would send this State bankrupt with his $22 billion of unfunded promises all over the State. There is not one interest group in the State that he has not said yes to; in not one area of State taxation has he not promised to reduce taxes without any idea of how they will pay for it. Maybe we will have core promises and non-core promises. Why not? We have seen that played out somewhere else before, have we not, Peter?

Ms TANYA GADIEL: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. What is the latest information on the impact of the Commonwealth's allocation of GST revenue on the New South Wales economy?

Mr Alan Ashton: Give the money back!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, that is right, give the money back. Tomorrow is an important day for the people of New South Wales because the next instalment comes tomorrow. Tomorrow the Commonwealth will unveil the latest calculations that the Grants Commission does for the Commonwealth Treasurer under the GST legislation. They do it for the Commonwealth Treasurer. It is the Commonwealth Treasurer who signs off after recommendations from the Grants Commission. It is all there, enshrined in three pieces of legislation. Tomorrow the latest calculations will be revealed. It will not be a good day for New South Wales. We are not expecting good news from the latest calculations of the Grants Commission, which they have sent to the Federal Treasurer to sign off on and cheat us out of more money.
Everyone in this House is familiar with the magnitude of the GST rip-off, and the consistent and persistent cheating of New South Wales. We all know the figures. Each year $13 billion goes out of New South Wales and only $10 billion is returned, which is $3 billion ripped out of the New South Wales economy each year. The $3 billion of New South Wales taxpayers' money is buying votes in the smaller States—that is what it is all about. It has nothing to do with the distribution of taxation revenue. It is all about buying the votes of the smaller States with the taxpayer dollars of the citizens of New South Wales. Every cash register, every petrol station and every small business is a tax collector for the Queensland Treasury courtesy of Peter Costello and John Howard. I would like to stand in this House and say that tomorrow will be the first instalment in righting this rip-off, but it will not. What we will get tomorrow is the Grants Commission outcome, which will do nothing to address the fundamental imbalance in the GST distribution.

Make no mistake—it sits with the Commonwealth Treasurer and the Prime Minister, Peter Costello and John Howard, to redress this imbalance, but they do not care. We expect a Victorian not to care, but we expect that a Prime Minister from New South Wales would care about his constituents, the people who put him into power, the people who sent him to Canberra, the people who voted for him to be Prime Minister. We do not expect any better from a Victorian Treasurer, but we expect that a Prime Minister from New South Wales would at least give his State a fair share of the GST. We expect that he would return to his constituents at least a fair share of their tax dollars, which we can invest in improving services for them and reducing taxation. But above all, the money coming back into the New South Wales economy would stimulate investment and job growth in New South Wales instead of buying votes in the smaller States.

That is what we would expect, but we will not get that tomorrow with the Grants Commission recommendations going to the Federal Treasurer. He will do what he has always done and that is to continue to cheat New South Wales out of its fair share of the GST, to cheat the taxpayers of New South Wales out of their money, money that ought to be invested in hospitals and schools, as well as investments and jobs in New South Wales. It will continue to be ripped out of the economy of this State to buy votes for John Howard and Peter Costello in the smaller States. That is what will happen tomorrow with the next instalment, the latest atrocity in a corrupt system of distribution of GST dollars. The Grants Commission admits that it is a rotten system. It is corrupt. It is rotten to the core. It is time that Costello's tax review also included a review of the GST distribution.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I direct my question without notice to the Premier. Given that the Commonwealth of Australian Governments [COAG] has met twice since he became Premier, on 27 September last year and just over two weeks ago on 10 February, why has he failed to raise or put on the agenda at either meeting the unfair distribution of GST revenue to New South Wales?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Because I had a face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister and put the New South Wales case to him. Guess what? It was across the road from Governor Macquarie Tower, where the Prime Minister has his office.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Willoughby to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The meeting was face to face. Our officials were there.

Mr Andrew Tink: Point of order: I remind the Premier that on that occasion the microphones must have been switched off.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Epping will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: There we were across the road in Phillip Street at the Prime Minister's office. Our officials and our staff were there, and the New South Wales case was put with strength, but what did he do? He just ignored it. Why? Because he does not care. Costello then says, "Let's have a review of the taxation system." Does he include the GST? No! New South Wales offered to have the review. What is his response? None.

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of clarification—
Mr SPEAKER: No, it must be a point of order.

Mr Peter Debnam: The formal forum is COAG.

Mr SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mr Peter Debnam: The Premier has ranted and raved in the meeting, but he has done nothing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will not obstruct the proceedings of the House. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He had his chance to say yes and engage with New South Wales to change the distribution, but he said no. He ignored New South Wales and he continues to ignore New South Wales. The Leader of the Opposition had his chance earlier when we moved a motion.

Mr Ian Armstrong: Point of order: I draw your attention to Standing Order 67, which provides that the Speaker may direct a member to cease speaking if the member persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition. That is what the Premier is embarking upon now.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Lachlan knows the standing orders better than that.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Last year, the opportunity was given to the Prime Minister when a Premier from New South Wales was meeting with a Prime Minister from New South Wales. They met not as a Labor Premier and a Liberal Prime Minister, but as a Prime Minister from New South Wales and a Premier from New South Wales. That is what the meeting was about, and it was a meeting to get New South Wales a fairer deal with the GST. What was the Prime Minister's response? He did not care. He was not interested.

Mr Andrew Stoner: You have done nothing.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals will get his chance later today yet again, for the second time, when we move a motion this afternoon. As the Leader of The Nationals showed when a motion for urgent consideration was moved in this House last year, he fails to look his Prime Minister in the eye, stare him down, and say, "Care about New South Wales! Give our money back." He squibbed it last year, and he will do the same this afternoon because what he will not do is stare down John Howard and fight for a better deal for New South Wales. He will just roll over for grubby political purposes. That is what he did last year, and that is what he will do today.

When a week ago the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, said that he would not give a Labor Government more money from the GST, did we hear one word in defence of New South Wales from the Leader of the Opposition? Do we hear one word of defence for the people of New South Wales when Costello gets up and says, "I am not going to give a Labor Government more money", as if the money is his, or the money comes to the Labor Party. The money belongs to the people of New South Wales.

The money should come back to New South Wales so that the New South Wales Government can spend more money on health services, education services and policing services for the people of New South Wales and add to the ever-increasing list of taxes that we have reduced in the past seven months—in fact, four reductions in seven months. That is what we do with the money. When Peter Costello said he was not going to stop the cheating because the money goes to a Labor Government—that is what the Federal Treasurer said—we would have expected a Victorian to keep dudding New South Wales, but what we do not expect is a New South Wales Prime Minister to continue cheating his own State.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the Minister inform the House of the extra measures the Government is taking to further protect the integrity of the Higher School Certificate?

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the honourable member for Canterbury for her interest in the Higher School Certificate [HSC]. The Board of Studies has developed a new program that aims to make students aware of the responsibilities they have when they undertake the Higher School Certificate. Anyone who talks to any parent of a year 11 or 12 student or any year 11 or 12 student will find that it is an incredibly stressful time for students, for their families, and for the teachers. There is no doubt that anything we can do and anything that the Board of Studies can do to better prepare students for the rigours of the Higher School Certificate is likely to reduce the stress.

The Higher School Certificate is well respected. It is an internationally recognised credential. Every year more than 60,000 students undertake the assessment in New South Wales. It helps students to develop skills that they need to gain employment and to access further education. The new program that has been introduced by the Board of Studies is "All My Own Work". As the name implies, this program will demonstrate the principles of academic integrity to every student who enters Higher School Certificate study from the end of 2006. It is the case that as students commence years 11 and 12, they enter a realm of more sophisticated and more rigorous study. It is important that they understand procedures such as academic integrity and its importance, how to avoid plagiarism, how to build a bibliography, how to reference Internet sources and conduct research. They will also learn about intellectual property and copyright.

Students will also be able to understand what is appropriate assistance from parents and others, and the difference between teamwork and collusion. On completion of their studies, students will have a sound knowledge and understanding of academic principles and ethics. The All My Own Work Program will serve as a minimum benchmark of knowledge in this field for every New South Wales Higher School Certificate student. The course is being developed by the Board of Studies and will operate in schools in addition to the existing anti-plagiarism and anti-cheating measures that all New South Wales schools are required to have.

The program will commence for New South Wales year 10 students from November this year and will be a short online course, which will be evaluated. It is at this time that students often find, after they have completed their Higher School Certificate, that there is a period when teachers will appreciate greater focus on year 11 and 12 studies, and that is what this short course will provide. I want to point out something that is widely recognised—cheating is very rare in the Higher School Certificate. The majority of students in New South Wales undertake the Higher School Certificate with diligence, with integrity and with honesty. We want that to continue.

The All My Own Work Program is one of a number of recommendations emanating from an independent review of Higher School Certificate Rules and Procedures that was commissioned by the Board of Studies last year following allegations of cheating by some tutors and students. The allegations were referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for investigation. There is a range of other recommendations that the board will implement this year, including: a tougher enrolment declaration requiring students not only to understand the rules of the Higher School Certificate but also to discuss the rules with their parents and guardians. In signing the certification, students are agreeing that any false information they provide might lead to the loss of the Higher School Certificate, and that this will apply to year 12 students from this year onwards. A much clearer and more detailed declaration is to be signed for major works that are submitted as part of the student's own work. This covers major projects such as artworks, music compositions, play scripts, et cetera.

There will be a simple guide for teachers, students and parents that sets out very clearly how to prevent cheating, how to deal with cases of suspected cheating and that refers people to more detailed material that is already published by the Board of Studies. The Board of Studies is aiming to raise the profile of academic integrity and HSC rules, and to encourage students, parents and teachers to openly discuss these important principles. Schools will continue to hold the greatest responsibility for monitoring students' conduct in the Higher School Certificate. It is the schools and the teachers who know a student, and who know a student's work and what a student is capable of, and this will continue. It is for this reason that the board will continue to require schools to certify that all major projects that students submit to the board for external marking for the Higher School Certificate have been completed on time, have been completed under the supervision of a teacher, and is the work of the student. The teacher also needs to certify that the project is consistent with earlier drafts and with other examples of students work.

New South Wales is rightly proud of the Higher School Certificate, of the quality of the credential, of the rigour and integrity of the credential. By reinforcing to students the value of doing their own work for the Higher School Certificate through the All My Own Work Program, students will have a better understanding of what constitutes cheating and a better understanding of how to avoid plagiarism. They will also understand the benefit of being able to demonstrate to the teachers that they have read from a wide range of sources, that they have absorbed many ideas, but that they have developed their own ideas. They will have a better grasp of the tools of formal research and will be better prepared for formal study. This program will be welcomed by teachers, welcomed by students and will be welcomed by families.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that he plans to spend $120 million on a white elephant desalination plant, why will he not just cancel the project and redirect the money to projects such as fixing the country school maintenance backlog, restoring the Casino to Murwillumbah train service, or fixing black spots on the Pacific Highway?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It was 21 August, was it not, when the Leader of The Nationals raced into the House and said, "Just get on with it and build it." That is what he said about the desalination plant. The simple answer to the question asked by the Leader of The Nationals is that the Government has a plan to guarantee the long-term future of Sydney's water resources. That plan involves—

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Nationals has asked the question. He will listen to the response in silence.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Just have a look at the comments of Professor Campbell and his team, who provided advice to the Government over a month ago. What did they say? They said that the capacity to bring online a desalination plant was an essential part of a plan to secure our future water needs. That was their advice. The plant would kick in at 30 per cent. The focus in securing Sydney's water needs is beyond recycling. Accessing the deep water from our dams will come online in August, taking dam levels from approximately 43 per cent to near 50 per cent. Accessing groundwater is contingency number one. When dam levels get to 40 per cent, we have contingency number two. As the Government has shown over the past 12 months, using water more wisely, more efficiently, can yield up to 145 billion litres of water savings. The plan involves a focus on recycling; not talking about recycling but getting on with the job of implementing recycling projects. We are at the expressions-of-interest stage for a major recycling project at Camellia. The initial estimates at Camellia—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: On a point of relevance, my question was about funding for country schools, country rail and country roads.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals raised the desalination plant in his question, and the Premier is answering the question.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Government will not risk Sydney's future water needs by not having a plan, by not implementing a plan.

[Interruption]

You do not have one. The Opposition has only made motherhood statements on recycling—and then reneged. The Opposition said that it would do recycling across the board, then said it would do recycling only in industry, then said it would do recycling only in limited cases. The Opposition said it would favour desalination. At first it said we should get on and build a desalination plant, then it said no, maybe we should rethink that. The Opposition then said perhaps we should explore other options, including a public-private partnership on desalination. Since late last year the Opposition has been saying that its water plan would be released soon. We are still waiting for it. The fact is, the Opposition does not have a water plan.

Mr Andrew Stoner: It is in!

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: No.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals would gamble with this city's future; the Government will not. That is why the Metropolitan Water Plan, the progress report issued a couple of weeks ago, contained the details and the action plan. It does not talk about recycling; it is about getting on and doing it. It does not talk about more efficient use of water; it is about getting on and doing it. It does not talk about accessing deep water in the dams; it talks about actually having the project finished so that water can be accessed. It does not talk about mapping exercises for potential groundwater, but about investing serious dollars to access that water and then investing dollars to ensure that the water is drinkable and investing dollars to ensure that the groundwater can get into the dams and into the water system. That is what the Government's water plan will do. Over the next 2½ decades the plan will secure this city's water needs; over the next 2½ decades this city will grow by one million people. The Government has a plan and will implement that plan to guarantee this growing city's future water needs. As far as the remainder of the question is concerned, I will not outline the detail today, except to say that over the next four years there will be an investment of $34.5 billion in the State's health, road and school infrastructure, including in large parts of rural New South Wales.

Shortly a document will be available from which a lazy Deputy Leader of the Opposition, such as the Leader of The Nationals, will be able to get information without having to do any work. All the information will be contained in a nice little booklet, easy to read and easy to access. We have done all the work for the Leader of The Nationals; all the information will be available on the State's infrastructure plan, including the current projects in 2005-06, those proceeding in 2006-07, where they are at, and their funding over the next four years from the $34.5 billion allocation. It will all be there, he will not have to do any work. The Government will make his job easy for him. He does not have any plans or policies. All he has is criticism on water and the State economy. He should read the transcript of what Standard and Poor's said last week about the strength of the State's balance sheet, budget and economy.

I can send him a copy of the transcript if he wishes; I know that he is not keen on doing too much work. In a few months time, the State infrastructure plan will contain all the detail for him, all the figures on all the projects. He will not have to do any research, the Government will have done it all for him.

Mr KEVIN GREENE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on improvements to CityRail services?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I am pleased to kick off the new parliamentary year with some positive news about our rail system. Today we have evidence that train users are reporting better service under the new CityRail timetable.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will be heard in silence.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: For the first time since the new timetable was introduced last September, an independent survey has verified what CityRail has been saying: reliability has substantially improved.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Willoughby will come to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: While the Government has more work to do to keep delivering on improvements, a clear, positive trend has been shown. In November last year the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator [ITSRR] randomly surveyed 1,006 commuters. Respondents were asked to rate the importance and quality of six aspects of CityRail services most likely to be affected by the new timetable. They were asked to rate punctuality, frequency, delays and cancellations, journey time, standing time on trains, and crowding. ITSRR reported:

The survey findings indicate that, since the introduction of the new CityRail timetable in September 2005, there has been a marked improvement for customers … They have experienced delays, crowding and skipped stops less often since the introduction of the new timetable.

For the sake of comparison, the regulator's previous survey, in July 2005, found that only 38 per cent of randomly surveyed passengers' punctuality expectations were met. However, a survey conducted in November, under the new timetable, recorded a leap of 40 percentage points in the proportion of commuters whose punctuality expectations were met—to 78 per cent. In July 2005, the satisfaction was 38 per cent, and in November satisfaction had risen to 78 per cent. The number of commuters whose expectations were met improved in all categories surveyed, including satisfaction with the level of delays and cancellations, up 29 points to 67 per cent; satisfaction with service frequency, up 22 points to 75 per cent; satisfaction with journey time, up eight points to 77 per cent; satisfaction with standing time on trains, up six points to 62 per cent; and satisfaction with crowding levels, up four points to 45 per cent. For the first time, we have independent proof that our rail services are improving, slowly but surely.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: Under Standing Order 143 it would be relevant for the Minister to survey country pensioners without the minimum $10 booking fee for free travel. Why does he not survey CountryLink passengers?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is talking about a general survey. The Leader of The Nationals knows that he is well and truly out of order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Those independent results show marked improvements. Yes, there is more to do, but we are on an upward trend. In the last four months of 2005 on time running for peak services was at 91.5 per cent compared to 61.7 per cent for the last four months of the previous year. After the new timetable we saw a jump from 61.7 per cent to 91.5 per cent. There is more work to be done but the new timetable has provided solid improvement. The next step is the new timetable for the eastern suburbs, Illawarra and South Coast lines on 28 May this year. That will deliver to commuters in St George, Sutherland shire and the Illawarra similar benefits to those experienced by train users under the September timetable.

While the survey showed improvements to heavy passenger loading, we are doing more to improve commuter comfort. Since the survey was conducted CityRail has increased from six to eight cars the number of carriages on two morning peak services: the 7.33 a.m. Campbelltown to Circular Quay via Granville service and the 7.57 a.m. Berowra to Central via the North Shore service. We knew there was overcrowding in those areas so we were able to increase the number of carriages on those two services. In May we will also be introducing some further changes to the overall timetable to improve capacity and address some concerns raised by commuters. These include an additional Penrith service from Chatswood via the central business district, departing Central between 6.30 p.m. and 6.40 p.m.

There will also be changes to services at North Sydney station to accommodate the $58 million upgrade that is about to commence at that station. There are also improved connection times between the Hunter line and Newcastle to Central Coast line services at Hamilton. All this talk of reliability and timetables reminds me of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Minister for Transport, and his great attention to detail on the issue of reliability. Plainly speaking, he just does not know his stuff. He has been trumpeting around town—unfortunately, it has been repeated on the media—that with the new timetable came a slashing of 3,500 daily services.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will come to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: His abacus must have been broken. Before the new timetable commenced CityRail ran 2,635 services daily. It now operates 2,365 services daily. There has been a reduction of 270 services, mainly in off-peak services. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that 3,500 services had been slashed and he repeated that figure in the media. If we abolished 3,500 services there would be no trains running in Sydney and hardly any trains running in Melbourne! Only 270 services were taken out of the system, mainly during the off-peak. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should get his figures right.

He also said last week that the new timetable was an absolute failure. His reasoning was that only 53.9 per cent of Illawarra line trains ran on time in the weekly afternoon peak services. The Illawarra line does not have a new timetable; it will not come into effect until May this year. Only then can we judge whether it has been a success. However, I reassure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the new timetable has improved services on his line_that is, the North Shore line_with 94.9 per cent of peak services on the North Shore line running on time in the four months to December 2005.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bathurst to order.

Mr Andrew Tink: Point of order: I am just wondering whether Carl Scully—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Mr Andrew Tink: I am wondering whether Carl Scully—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Epping will resume his seat. Clearly that is not a point of order.

[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Epping to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: These good results from the ITSRR survey are an encouragement to do even better. The Government and I will not be satisfied unless we can continue to grind out improvements in our CityRail services so we can deliver people to work on time and, more importantly, get them home on time at the end of a hard day.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Why is the Premier not providing payroll tax exemptions in country areas in need of economic development, including electorates west of the Great Dividing Range and on the South Coast?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call. The honourable member for Bathurst and the Leader of The Nationals will stop their interchange.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am happy to respond to the Leader of The Nationals. Last Thursday the Government announced the fourth tax cut in seven months to drive activity, investment and jobs. That cut was targeted to areas that registered above the State average for unemployment for two years. Therefore, any area that is above the State average for unemployment for two years qualifies for these payroll tax exemptions. These exemptions do not replace existing measures that are in place to attract jobs to regional and rural New South Wales. While the Leader of The Nationals was asleep last Thursday the Government's action plan also involved a $13 million injection into State development so that it can target packages to attract investment and jobs into rural and regional New South Wales.

Mr Andrew Stoner: You have no intentions west of the dividing range.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals might want to have a higher than State average unemployment rate west of the divide. On his own admission, he wants those regions to lose jobs.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Government will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is what he wants.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for East Hills will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals stood up today and said he wants higher than State average unemployment in rural New South Wales.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I ask you to direct the Premier to stop his shameless lying in this place.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We finally got him to tell the truth. He is resentful of all those areas in rural New South Wales that are booming. He wants them to lose jobs and investment. That is what he wants. That is why he asked this question. What a disgrace!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Small Business will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What a disgrace! A member of The Nationals said he wants more job losses in rural New South Wales.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I take it the Premier has completed his response. Does the honourable member for Murrumbidgee have a point of order?

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Mr Speaker, you can guess what I am going to say—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee can resume his seat if he thinks the Speaker is clairvoyant and can guess what he is saying. Do you have a point of order?

Mr Adrian Piccoli: I do have a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Why do you not state your point of order instead of indulging in panegyrics? What is the point of order?

Mr Adrian Piccoli: My point of order is relevance. You are aware of that point of order. The Premier is not being relevant in his answer. I ask you, for once in the three years that you have been Speaker, to make the Premier abide by standing orders.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the Premier's answer as clearly as everybody else in the House. He was specifically and directly responding to the question from the Leader of The Nationals.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Last Thursday the Government announced an extra measure in regard to payroll tax targeted to the areas of highest unemployment in this State. That is in addition to the $13 million budget increase for the Department of State and Regional Development to tailor packages to attract investment and jobs in rural New South Wales. It does not replace the measures that are in place, nor does it prevent the Government from doing more of what it did yesterday. Yesterday I was proud to be in Albury to sign a deal in which the State Government has assisted, through its other measures in State and Regional Development, in securing 500 jobs at the former BorgWarner plant, the iron factory in Albury. That is what we are about: securing those jobs for New South Wales. The payroll tax measures of last week are extra measures designed to secure jobs and investment for New South Wales.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. What is the latest information on planning reform in New South Wales?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I thank the honourable member for Strathfield for her question and acknowledge her keen interest in planning matters. The past year has seen the biggest overhaul in planning in this State for about a quarter of a century.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will be heard in silence.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: The Government has slashed red tape and streamlined the system. We are determined to provide growth, more jobs and more investment in this State. Since August I have determined 190 applications with a capital value of about $3 billion, creating 9,000 jobs. But the Minister for Planning deals with only about 400 applications per year compared with local councils, which deal with 125,000 applications every year. Most councils do a pretty good when dealing with these applications but, unfortunately some are wide of the mark in terms of reasonable performance .

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: The State cannot sit idly by and allow that to continue because there are many such examples and the community, not just the development sector, has expressed concern in this regard. In the past four years there has been a 20 per cent increase in councils' average assessment time in this State. Legal costs have increased by 79 per cent in the past five years. For example, one council refused 70 per cent of all dual occupancy applications. Of the 30 applications that were appealed, it lost all but four. So that council has spent $850,000 on appeals that have failed totally. In some cases, legal costs are more than 50 per cent of the budget of the entire planning department.

Clearly, many councils work hard and try to balance the often complex development issues. But other councils do not. For this reason, the Government will be introducing legislation to add to the current provisions and allow for the appointment of a planning administrator. A planning administrator may be appointed if a council does not comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The legislation will permit intervention if a council's performance is unsatisfactory or if the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommends that we do so. This will offer greater flexibility.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: The legislation will provide, first, that a planning administrator may be appointed to deal with only some aspects of the council's functions and that a planning assessment panel may be appointed to deal with any function or part of a function that is currently administered by council. For example, if a council's approval process takes an average of 220 days a panel could be appointed to deal with all applications that have been outstanding for more than 60 days.

Mr John Turner: Point of order: Has the Minister also thought about—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order? This is question time; it is not a debate. When honourable members are given the call to take a point of order I expect them to do just that.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: One of the reasons for this proposal is that hundreds of applicants in the community want me to call things in because of those sorts of problems. I do not intend to call everything in; I intend to deal with issues at a local level. Those opposite are quick to come to me when they require assistance with a planning matter. The new system will offer greater flexibility.

The second major reform that the Government is concerned about is section 94 contributions. These contributions are legitimate when a growing population generates demand for an additional service or services. But unfortunately a few councils are using it as a backdoor cash cow. Some significant examples of this come to my attention from time to time. For instance, one council charges $3,000 for each new room per house. Therefore, new parents who want to extend their home must pay a baby tax of $3,000. When those families move out at some point in the future I am sure that the empty nesters who move in are not reimbursed that $3,000 by the council. Another council charges $12,500 per person for new houses, which adds $34,000 to the cost of building a house.

In seventeenth century England residents were taxed according to how many windows they had in their home. Some councils in New South Wales appear to come from seventeenth century England. Taxes include a levy on public art, $39 per resident to upgrade the council computer system and a $13 levy to fund a new waste education centre. Another council is charging $50 per new lot to pay for a museum upgrade and another levies for street trees and public toilet upgrades—great one! Clearly, some councils are imposing higher costs on development and housing in this State. We have imposed the BASIX obligation, which is very important from an energy and water conservation point of view, but the Government cannot stand by while these additional costs are imposed. One council has a development control plan that requires a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of three metres and three-metre balconies, which adds almost $45,000 to the cost of a unit. That money is coming out of the pockets of home owners, who just want somewhere to live.

The new legislation will also confer the power to intervene in development control plans. There will be significant reforms. The good councils have nothing to fear but the few councils that bring the rest into disrepute will have to get their act together and their house in order. The Government is determined to provide an efficient and streamlined system to promote economic development and good planning in this State.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is directed to the Premier. In view of advice from the Cross City Motorway Consortium that it sought only one road closure and the Government's own legal advice that 49 road changes can be reversed without the threat of compensation, will the Premier now end his betrayal of the community and reopen the roads?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The report of the Select Committee on the Cross-city Tunnel is out and the Government welcomes a range of its recommendations because they mirror the recommendations of the Richmond review, which was released on 8 December 2005. For example, one major recommendation of the report is moving from no cost to the taxpayers to best value for money. The same recommendation appeared in the Richmond report of 8 December that the Government has already accepted. The report contains a recommendation about an infrastructure and planning subcommittee of the Cabinet. I understand that that is a major recommendation of the committee's report. For the benefit of the committee and of the Leader of the Opposition, I can confirm that one such subcommittee is already in existence and has been working for some time.

Mr Andrew Tink: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. Recommendation No. 14 is about road closures. Why will the Premier not respond to that recommendation? He has answered every other one.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Epping will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Epping will resume his seat. I call him to order for the second time.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We welcome the committee's report. The Government is considering the report. A whole range of its recommendations mirror those of the Richmond inquiry, which the Government has already announced, released and accepted. Before I was rudely interrupted by the honourable member for Epping, I was detailing to the House what those recommendations are, such as moving from no cost to the taxpayer to value to the taxpayer. It was clearly detailed in the Richmond report that the Government will never again seek control of the existing road network when delivering a motorway. These are just some of the recommendations that are mirrored in today's committee report. We are considering the report. As I have already outlined, a number of the committee's recommendations mirror those of Richmond, which we have already accepted and acted on.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I ask a supplementary question. The Premier has mentioned the Richmond report. Will he finally admit that the Richmond report does not contain recommendation 14, which is contained in the committee's report, which says that he can reopen the roads today?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened closely to the question—

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I listened very closely too, and I was very careful in what I said.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I intended to say—

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I suggest that you do not protect the Premier on this issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I intended to say—

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I think the problem you have, and the problem the Premier has, is you just do not understand how angry the community is in regard to the cross-city tunnel, the reduction of police numbers and the simple refusal of the Premier to deliver for the people of New South Wales

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked three questions during question time. I listened closely to the supplementary question. The Premier answered that question when giving a detailed response to the original question. The Leader of the Opposition cannot purport to ask a supplementary question by seeking information that was provided in the answer to the original question. I rule the supplementary question out of order. The honourable member for Monaro has the call.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I can only disagree. What we have here is a Labor Party Speaker protecting the Premier on this issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is not entitled to disagree with the ruling of the Chair. There are procedures available to him under the standing orders if he wishes to do so. He will resume his seat.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: Mr Speaker, you have got 12 months.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: You cannot protect him on every question for 12 months.

MR SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr STEVE WHAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister update the House on the latest news on efforts to control feral animal numbers in New South Wales?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Government will come to order.

Mr BOB DEBUS: After habitat loss, invasive species are the greatest threat to our biodiversity, and the consequences of the activity of invasive animals on industry are very considerable indeed. In New South Wales public land managers allocate significant resources to fighting pest animals and weeds. In just my portfolio approximately $18 million is spent to control pest animals and weeds in national parks.

Mr Michael Richardson: Point of order: The Minister is not supposed to mislead the House. I have a document here which states that the department spent $7.49 million, not $18 million—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is obvious that members of the Opposition are flagrantly contravening the standing orders. The performance of the honourable member for The Hills was B-grade. He will resume his seat.

Mr BOB DEBUS: The Government spends $18 million on pest animals and weeds in national parks. When last in office the Coalition was spending $1 million. As for the honourable member's interjection, I can only say that he would for consistency be arguing that it did not include the salaries of nurses in the Health budget.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bathurst will come to order.

Mr BOB DEBUS: There are 1,500 targeted control programs in national parks concerning wild dogs, foxes, feral pigs, rabbits, goats and deer. Of course, private landowners also spend considerable time and money to help keep populations of feral animals in check. Today I inform the House that 17 Rural Lands Protection Boards in New South Wales have recently secured nearly $800,000 to help conserve biodiversity, and the bulk of those funds will go to tackling the challenges posed by feral animals. The $800,000 was awarded as part of the Envirofund program—a component of the Natural Heritage Trust. The funding was offered as part of a special drought recovery initiative. Local stakeholders were invited to apply for funding in districts that were declared by the Commonwealth as an exceptional circumstances drought area as of August 2005.

There is a strong correlation between feral animal numbers and droughts. During the peak of a drought, pest animal numbers generally decline, as they lack feed and other conditions to survive and thrive. However, when droughts break, feral animal populations can rapidly increase on the back of improved conditions in the bush. My colleague in the other House has indicated in recent weeks that the drought has broken in many areas of New South Wales. As a result, this is the ideal time for stakeholders to undertake programs designed to keep feral animal numbers in check.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much conversation in the Chamber.

Mr BOB DEBUS: That is why funding for Rural Lands Protection Boards is important. The honourable member for Murray-Darling will be pleased to know that in the Balranald, Hillston and Wentworth districts Rural Lands Protection Boards will direct more than $100,000 toward rabbit control and fox baiting projects in co-operation with local landholders. The Northern Slopes RLPB will direct $45,000 to help reduce pig numbers. The Moree RLPB will focus its share of funding toward feral pig and goat numbers. These projects will complement a string of successful initiatives funded and supported already by the New South Wales Government.

The Department of Primary Industries is a core partner in the new Invasive Animals Co-operative Research Centre. The New South Wales hub of the new co-operative research centre is based in Orange. The State Government will commit approximately $2.5 million in in-kind support over the next several years to develop new and improved strategies that reduce the impact of pest animals. The State's wild dog management plans provide some of the best examples of co-operative pest control in New South Wales. Successful aerial baiting programs have been carried out in national parks, State forests and on private land, as part of joint efforts between the Department of Environment and Conservation, Forests NSW, RLPBs and local wild dog control associations.

Because of this Government's wild dog eradication programs, stock losses, for instance, in Wee Jasper area, which had been a hot-spot for wild dog activity, have dropped 75 per cent since 2002. In some areas around Glen Innes, reported stock losses have also dropped 65 per cent. Due to strong lobbying by the honourable member for Monaro, the Government has established wild dog management plans for key areas of Kosciuszko National Park. Similar plans are being developed for the Tweed and Lismore areas. The fact is that the Government has been a long-time leader in developing and supporting innovative projects that help landholders meet the challenges of life on the land. The work of the Rural Lands Protection Boards will complement a range of successful projects happening across New South Wales in feral animal control. I congratulate the RLPBs on their successful bid.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I seek leave of the House to give notice of a motion outside the time prescribed by the standing orders.

Leave not granted.

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police) [3.40 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders to suspended to permit the giving of a notice of motion after the time prescribed by the standing orders.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [3.40 p.m.]: Here we are, on the first day back, and a senior member of the Government cannot get his act together; he cannot get together the Government's program of work for this vital year—in the lead-up to the election. Instead, he is mucking about, seeking leave to suspend standing and sessional orders to bring on Government legislation. That is not only pathetic but a disgrace. In fact, there is very little legislation before the House. Obviously, the word has gone out to Minister Sartor, "Bring on something pretty quickly, because we've got nothing to do." Today I have been waiting patiently for the Attorney General to bring on the long-promised legislation on majority jury verdicts. Where is that legislation, which was promised last year? There is none. The Attorney General has not got his act together, nor has the Minister for Planning. However, the Leader of the House has got his act together.

Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order—

Mr ANDREW TINK: The Leader of the House is doing a cameo performance because he wants to be the next Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Epping will resume his seat. The honourable member for Bathurst has the call.

Mr Gerard Martin: Speaking of "getting your act together"—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Mr Gerard Martin: The honourable member for Epping has admitted that he could not handle the leadership job because he did not have the ticker for it, so he should not get up and lecture us. He has no backbone and no future.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bathurst will resume his seat.

Mr ANDREW TINK: However unpalatable it is for the honourable member for Bathurst—who is now a junior member of a dysfunctional and ever-decreasingly relevant and important Government—the point is that, on the first day back in this place after a recess, in arguably the most important session of this four-year Parliament, when the Premier is going around the place saying, "Trust us for another term because we're competent, we're the ones who know what we are doing," his Minister for Planning demonstrates that he does not even know the standing orders of the House. It is important to members on this side of the Chamber—even if it is not important to the honourable member for Bathurst—that the Minister for Planning is overriding every local rule, every local condition, every local development application and every local planning instrument and saying, "Trust me, I can do it." The Minister is riding roughshod over the honourable member for Lane Cove, he is riding roughshod over the people who want proper and due process at the Royal Ryde Hospital site, and he is riding roughshod over the Deputy Premier—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is bad enough that the Speaker's left ear is being battered by the honourable member for Epping; his right ear does not need to be battered by the honourable member for Bathurst.
Mr ANDREW TINK: The Minister for Planning is riding roughshod over Ryde Council, he is riding roughshod over the constituents of the honourable member for Lane Cove, and he is riding roughshod over the constituents of the honourable member for Ryde—even though the honourable member for Ryde has got his head in a giant, stinking bucket of sand, trying to pretend nothing is happening—and he is riding roughshod over my constituents regarding the Channel 7 site at Epping.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Mr ANDREW TINK: The Minister for Planning tells my constituents that he is better able than Parramatta City Council to determine how, when and to what extent the Channel 7 site at Epping will be developed. He is saying to my constituents that he knows better than Parramatta council the planning instruments involved, and what is required on that site. He is saying that he knows better than the local people what is required for development of that area.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Blacktown will come to order.

Mr ANDREW TINK: What makes this an obscenity, both in relation to the Channel 7 site and the Royal Ryde Hospital site, is that the Minister does not know the rules of this House.

Mr Frank Sartor: Point of order: I am seriously concerned about the blood pressure of the honourable member for Epping.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr ANDREW TINK: The Minister for Planning has demonstrably demonstrated his incompetence by his lack of knowledge of the rules of this House—rules with which he should be most conversant.

Mr Carl Scully: Point of order: I think the honourable member needs a little English instruction. "Demonstrably demonstrated" does not have a grammatical ring to it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. I am sure the honourable member for Epping is grateful that these spurious points of order are giving him the opportunity to regain his breath.

Mr ANDREW TINK: I am. I am relying on the Minister for a glass of water, too—or even a glass of milk! It is interesting that the Leader of the House—the next Opposition leader—just got to his feet. He is very perky these days. He loved that latest ministerial reshuffle: Smoking Joe and Sparkles have started speaking to each other again! It is wonderful: peace negotiations have broken out! But I saw Joe Tripodi looking at the Premier when the Premier was answering questions and I have never seen, colloquially speaking, a more murderous look in a person's eye! The mafia are being called out, and we are going to see big changes. But, for heaven's sake, I plead with the Leader of the House, when he is Leader of the Opposition, to get rid of this idiot of a planning Minister. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Bartlett Ms Beamer Mr Black Mr Brown Ms Burney Miss Burton Mr Campbell Mr Chaytor Mr Collier Mr Corrigan Mr Crittenden Ms D'Amore Mr Daley Mr Debus Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Ms Gadiel

Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mr Greene Ms Hay Mr Hickey Mr Hunter Mr Iemma Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Morris Mr Newell Ms Nori Mr Orkopoulos

Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Scully Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Torbay Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Mr Armstrong Mr Barr Ms Berejiklian Mr Cansdell Mr Constance Mr Debnam Mr Fraser Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson

Mrs Hopwood Mr Humpherson Mr Kerr Mr McTaggart Mr Merton Mr O'Farrell Mr Oakeshott Mr Page Mr Piccoli Mr Pringle Mr Richardson Mr Roberts

Ms Seaton Mrs Skinner Mr Slack-Smith Mr Souris Mr Stoner Mr Tink Mr J. H. Turner Mr R.W. Turner Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Notice of motion given.

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

(1) That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit:

(a) the introduction at 7.30 p.m. of the following bills, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow, up to and including the Minister's second reading speech:

Air Transport Amendment Bill
Child Protection (International Measures) Bill
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill
Fines Amendment (Payment of Victims Compensation Levies) Bill
Fisheries Management Amendment Bill
Land Tax Management Amendment (Tax Threshold) Bill
National Parks and Wildlife (Adjustment of Areas) Bill

at the conclusion of which the House shall adjourn without motion being put; and

(b) from the commencement of private members' statements until the rising of the House, no divisions or quorums to be called.

(2) That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 1 March 2006 at 10.00 a.m.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.53 p.m.], by leave: During question time the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport sought to misrepresent statements I made about service changes. I remind the Minister for Transport that the 3,500 is a weekly figure that includes not only the service reductions that he talks about but also the stations where trains no longer stop and services where trains have been reduced from eight-car carriages to six-car carriages.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should inform the House how he has been misrepresented. He should not attempt to place on the record—

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I have been misrepresented because the Deputy Premier claims that the figure referred to one thing when, in fact, it referred to three aspects of timetable changes—and I am happy to stand by that, with or without a survey of commuters.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now well and truly outside the bounds of a personal explanation.
Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.54 p.m.]: This motion is of the utmost urgency. The best example of its urgency would be the comments yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition when he said, "Tomorrow, the first question time this year, I will again say to Morris Iemma, 'Queenslanders are bludgers. Straight after question time, let's both get on a plane and renegotiate the agreement with Peter Beattie.' I am very happy to go with Morris Iemma to every single capital city—"

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr MATT BROWN: The Leader of the Opposition made no such comments today in question time. Is this the workings of the extreme right of the Liberal Party? They insult an entire State and its leader and then they want to negotiate a better deal for New South Wales. That is unparliamentary and it is just not right. Tomorrow we will learn the New South Wales share of the revenue that the Federal Government reaps in GST receipts. Tomorrow we will learn whether the Commonwealth will continue the great scam, which sees New South Wales' taxpayers lose $13 billion a year, only to receive $10 billion in return. Tomorrow the Commonwealth Grants Commission will report the outcome of the latest round of GST allocations, which means that we have today, one day, to prevent this scandal from continuing. I urge the Opposition to cut the weasel words and support the motion, which deserves precedence.

The motion is urgent because the people of New South Wales have one day for the Leader of the Opposition to pick up the phone and for a change support the taxpayers of this State. The motion is urgent because we have one day to make the Commonwealth see sense. The motion is urgent because the Iemma Government will not relent in its fight to gain a better deal for New South Wales, and if we do not debate this motion today the Opposition will lose the chance to put its support for the taxpayers of New South Wales on the record. The matter is urgent because the people of New South Wales, our constituents—not just the people represented by Government members but all taxpayers, including those represented by members opposite—deserve our very best efforts in putting an end, once and for all, to the great GST rip-off. The matter is urgent because the clock is ticking. We must debate this issue today, with the support of the Opposition.

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [3.57 p.m.]: I am happy to respond to that curious statement by the honourable member for Kiama. Obviously, he was not here in September last year—

Mr Matt Brown: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Matt Brown: It is urgency.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: He is still confused. Obviously, he was not here in September when I said to the Premier, "On the first day of Parliament come with me to the airport. We will go up and tell Peter Beattie that we want to renegotiate it." That was the issue back then. This is how urgent they feel about it: For six months they have not taken me up on the offer. That is why today the urgent thing is the cross-city tunnel report, which was released a couple of hours ago. It is critical that we discuss the report because it has some pretty fundamental recommendations for the Government on points that we have repeated a number of times over the past six months, the validity of which the Government has denied. But here they are in a parliamentary report produced by a committee, including Labor Party members.

Recommendation 14, which says, "Open the roads", is urgent. Who can open the roads? The Premier; he can open the roads today. It is urgent that the Premier demonstrates to the people of New South Wales that he is no longer treating them with contempt. But he is not here, and I doubt that he will do it. I am going to remind him every day for the next 12 months that it is entirely within his control to open the roads urgently. It is in the report in very straightforward language that even the honourable member for Kiama would understand in the testimony of former Minister Andrew Refshauge, who appeared before the committee and who was straightforward when he said, "The tunnel was specifically designed to reduce the capacity of cars to come into the city."
The Labor Party wanted to lock cars out of the city. That is an absolutely straightforward statement from the former Deputy Premier. Another point that urgently needs to be debated today is that there were private discussions between the Hon. John Della Bosca and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about current Ministers appearing before the inquiry. The guarantee was given by the Hon. John Della Bosca that any serving Minister would appear before the inquiry. That guarantee was given to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who has confirmed that publicly.

The Government should explain why the Hon. John Della Bosca lied and refused to allow the Minister for Police to appear before the committee. Why did he allow the Premier to squib it and not appear before the committee? Those matters are urgent and the people of New South Wales want to know about them today. The report also refers to other testimony by traffic modellers who said, "Open the roads. It will have minimal impact on the tunnel." One of the forecasters used by the Government said that the impact of road closures could be as low as 3 per cent on the flow of traffic through the tunnel. That is the issue.

Government members need to understand that the cross-city tunnel has become an issue for the people of New South Wales. It has become larger than life because it is a symbol of the arrogance and incompetence of this Government when dealing with infrastructure. Government members simply do not understand why people in New South Wales are so angry. They are angry because Government members are clearly incompetent. Examples of incompetence include the Minister for Police with his $362 million local bus service that was built over three election campaigns and the cross-city tunnel project, which involved the Government unnecessarily selling public roads to the private sector.

This Government does not understand why the people of New South Wales are angry about the weekend of violence that recently occurred and the reduction in police numbers by 540 over 2¼ years. This Government just does not understand why people are angry. Every single day for the next 12 months, the Opposition will remind the Government why the people of New South Wales are angry. The cross-city tunnel is one of the reasons why people are angry. The cross-city tunnel is a debacle and is an issue that everybody in New South Wales understands. Recommendation 14 states:

That the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority immediately reverse the traffic measures identified in Appendix 5 of this report and categorised as category B, C or D and further investigate reversing those referred to as category A as soon as possible.

That recommendation was made by the parliamentary committee comprising Labor Party members, who were painted into a corner. The weight of public opinion is turning against the Government because it has been found to be incompetent and people found out that it had been selling public roads. [Time expired]

Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Kiama be proceeded with—agreed to.

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.02 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates Premier Morris Iemma on his unrelenting fight to end the great GST rip-off.

(2) supports the comments of Reserve Bank Governor Ian Macfarlane that New South Wales gets a raw deal under the present funding arrangements.

(3) condemns the Federal Treasurer for his politically motivated refusal to make more funds available for the people of New South Wales.

(4) urges the Leader of the Opposition to show some backbone and put the interests of the people of New South Wales before those of his mates in Canberra.

New South Wales taxpayers are being ripped off when it comes to the GST. Each year, including during the past financial year 2005-06, New South Wales' taxpayers contribute $13 billion to Federal coffers, but only $10 billion comes back from Canberra for New South Wales to spend on the provision of services that are required by New South Wales' taxpayers. That means that New South Wales' taxpayers lose $3 billion in GST revenue each and every year.
Since his election as Premier, Morris Iemma has made his position clear: New South Wales' taxpayers deserve a better deal from the Commonwealth Government. Anyone who examines the basic figures I have mentioned would realise that New South Wales is getting ripped off and it deserves a better deal. The New South Wales Premier has raised this issue in Parliament six times—most recently this afternoon during question time—highlighting his personal commitment to the fight to ending the great GST rip-off.

All members of this Government stand united with the Premier in his unrelenting fight for families across New South Wales, including the taxpayers represented in this place by members opposite. I often receive representations not only from constituents of my own electorate but also from constituents of electorates south of Kiama who ask for government financial assistance in the provision of services. All the latter constituents ever hear is criticism about the insufficiency of services, but not once have they heard their local members of Parliament join in the fight and say to their Federal Coalition colleagues, "Why do you not give New South Wales its fair share so that more money can flow through to electorates throughout New South Wales."

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who panders to any special interest group that taps on his door and makes whacky commitments, such as the creation of a new bureaucracy—a defence industry unit, which would duplicate the work done by the Department of State and Regional Development, the Premier, Morris Iemma, is committed to clawing back $3 billion that New South Wales loses every year in the great GST rip-off. If this issue was not so serious, the Opposition's weasel words on the subject would raise a laugh, but nobody is laughing.

Blind Freddy can see the disgraceful scam being perpetuated by the Commonwealth Government. New South Wales' taxpayers are fed up, and their outrage is backed by independent figures from people such as the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Ian Macfarlane. On Friday 17 February Mr Macfarlane told the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration:

... certainly, at the moment, there does not seem to be a logical case for taking the taxpayers' money from New South Wales and Victoria and redistributing some of it to Western Australia and Queensland.

The Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia is saying that it is illogical. He cannot understand why it is happening. The Iemma Government will continue to offer its support for the smaller States and Territories such as Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory and understands that we have a legitimate role in the Federation of supporting our smaller States, but that should not be the case in relation to Queensland and Western Australia, which are two big States with their current huge mining resources booms. Royalties are flowing into those States' coffers as they never have previously.

It makes no sense that about $636 million of this $3 billion of New South Wales taxpayers' money goes straight over the border to Queensland. Each year New South Wales taxpayers raise more than $636 million, but that goes straight to Queensland. That is an annual "Sunshine State" subsidy of approximately $93 from every man, woman and child in New South Wales, or $242 from each New South Wales household. That money goes straight to Queensland. This comes at a time when Queensland is experiencing a 47 per cent increase in mining royalties because of the resources boom that has been driven by the expanding economies of China and India in particular, which simply cannot get enough iron ore, coal and other mining industry resources. Approximately $232 million crosses the Nullarbor to Western Australia, which equates to $34 per person in New South Wales.

It is clear that the current Commonwealth-State funding arrangements are biased against the people of New South Wales. The GST package was supposed to provide the States with a better deal than the old system, which is what the propaganda associated with the GST led us to believe. When the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations [IGA] was signed in 1999 one of its objectives was to provide "an improvement in the financial position of all State and Territory Governments ... relative to that which would have existed had the current arrangements continued." But that has not happened. I sometimes hear conservative Coalition members say that more money is coming in from the GST than under the former arrangements, and that is true. There is more money, but it is not a relative improvement, which is the purport of the signed agreement.

New South Wales has been short-changed. New South Wales has received fewer GST gains than any other State. The Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, says the States have received more from the GST than was promised, but since the introduction of the tax New South Wales has received just $209 million in GST gains compared to $4.1 billion for the other States. New South Wales receives an additional $209 million whereas the other States receive an additional $4.1 billion. How can that be shown to be fair? That equates to just $31 per person in net GST gains in New South Wales compared to an average of $297 per person for the remainder of the country. People who live in other States receive nearly 10 times the redisbursed revenue that New South Wales taxpayers receive.
Since the introduction of the GST, New South Wales has lost a total of approximately $800 million per year due to Commonwealth Grants Commission changes. This means that New South Wales is now receiving significantly less in GST funds than was expected when the agreement was signed in 1999. For example, in the 2004-05 financial year, New South Wales received $403 million less in GST grants than was initially expected.

For 2005-06 this shortfall is currently estimated at $631 million. All other States have received more in funding from the introduction of the GST than was originally estimated. New South Wales is the only State to suffer a shortfall in funding. That shortfall in our funding has resulted in the New South Wales slice of the GST moving by only 6 per cent between 2000-01 and 2005-06, or 1.5 per cent per year, which is significantly less than the rate of inflation. Every other State has experienced growth in its GST payments of about 26 per cent over that period. That is an annual growth of around 6 per cent per year, well ahead of inflation. In real terms per person, the New South Wales GST grants have fallen by about 7 per cent from 2001-02 until now. That is while the other States have experienced a per person increase in GST funds of about 7 per cent in real terms. That has imposed significant pressures on resources in New South Wales.

New South Wales funding had also been significantly cut by the operations of the Grants Commission. The current arrangements are inadequate, arcane and an insult to the intelligence, as can be seen if one looks at some of the reasons why New South Wales loses money. The commission has said that New South Wales has almost 16,000 too many bus stops—reduced our funding. We have 38 kilometres too much rail track—reduce funding to New South Wales. We spend $345 million too much on roads—we should cut funding. We spend too much on housing, vocational training and, worst of all, we spend $112 million too much on family and child services. Because New South Wales has a social conscience, its funding has been cut by the Commonwealth. That is a disgrace. The methodology clearly needs reform.

The dysfunctional GST carve-up literally gives New South Wales money, in the form of a continuing cross-subsidy, to the resource-rich States of Queensland and Western Australia. I ask Opposition members who are present today to take a stand and vote with the Government, and for their constituencies, to put whatever pressure we can on Peter Costello, who has the final sign-off on this deal, as is clearly spelt out in legislation. We want to make sure that Peter Costello knows that New South Wales is united, that we care about this State, and we will not pander to his power base in Victoria. Today our job is not to worry about what Peter Costello will do to Victoria. We are fighting for the right of the people of this State to a decent share of GST revenue. I expect Opposition members to stand, on behalf of their constituents, with the Premier and the Government members of this House. I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to pick up the phone and put an end to this scam. We need a better and fairer system, and we need it urgently.

Ms PETA SEATON (Southern Highlands) [4.12 p.m.]: The honourable member for Kiama has either not been listening or is terribly confused. In September last year the Leader of the Opposition clearly said that Queenslanders are bludgers because they have had the benefit of the New South Wales GST distribution that they do not need, and that if Premier Iemma were serious about this, he and the Leader of the Opposition would get on a plane together and go to Queensland to confront Peter Beattie. The Opposition has said this again and again, but still the honourable member for Kiama persists with this nonsense. The real problem is that Labor simply will not stop spending, will not reign in on its waste and duplication, and will not cut taxes in such a way as to promote employment opportunities and employment confidence in small business.

If the Government wants any evidence of that, it need only look at today's release by Sensis of the small business confidence index, which shows that nearly 50 per cent of all small businesses surveyed said that they have no confidence in the policies of the Iemma Government. The index showed that they most dislike the large number of bureaucrats in New South Wales, red tape, and the high taxes and charges levied by the State. The Labor Government should not have needed the Stokes and Vertigan audit to tell it exactly what was wrong. For years the Opposition has been telling the Government what was wrong with its budget and its budget management. We have had to wait for five months to get an audit from Stokes and Vertigan to tell the Government what everyone else has known for years: it cannot continue to spend at a rate greater than the revenue it receives.

It is interesting that the honourable member for Kiama moved this motion today, because clearly he is very nervous. Again we hear the great Labor blame game yet again. It tries to blame anyone but itself for the situation it is in. One only need listen to the Government's response to the Stokes and Vertigan audit to realise that it is blaming everyone else. It is blaming the Reserve Bank of Australia, the climate, the drought, terrorists and the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome. It makes no mention of State taxes in the list of blame. New South Wales undoubtedly gets a raw deal, and Queensland is undoubtedly big enough and ugly enough to stand on its own feet. There is no argument whatsoever from the Opposition on that point. The real problem is that Premier Iemma does not have the guts to stand up to and confront Peter Beattie. The Opposition has never had a different view about that.

The honourable member for Kiama should focus on why New South Wales is in the present dreadful situation of having the highest level of mainland unemployment in Australia. New South Wales is meant to be the powerhouse of the national economy, but it has an unemployment rate of 5.7 per cent. That rate has increased consistently over recent months, particularly since the Premier was installed in the State's top job. It has increased almost every month since he became Premier, from 4.8 per cent a little over six or seven months ago to 5.7 per cent. That is the highest unemployment rate of any mainland State.

In the last quarter of 2005 New South Wales economic growth contracted. I would be interested to hear what the Government has to say about what it expects to see in tomorrow's economic growth results. New South Wales has the lowest population growth. That is because those who arrive in New South Wales look around and decide that our taxes are too high. They realise they cannot afford a home in Premier Iemma's New South Wales, so they move their families and their businesses to Queensland or Victoria—and increasingly it is to Queensland. New South Wales has amongst the lowest dwelling approval and investment statistics in the entire country. That is because State taxes, including land and payroll tax, are absolutely prohibitive. Whilst the Government is good at announcing that it will release large areas of land in south-west and north-west Sydney, developers cannot afford to buy that land and invest in it because they know they will not make a profit.

New South Wales has an unaffordability crisis for homebuyers, the highest average mortgage being about $258,000. But the Iemma Government does not care because it gets extra mortgage duty from the higher mortgages. That is part of the hidden taxes, the so-called hidden GST taxes, which we should not have kept. When former Premier Bob Carr signed the GST deal he knew exactly what the formula was. At that time Premier Carr was not prepared to stand up to Queensland, and Premier Iemma does not have the guts to do what he should do, that is, take on Peter Beattie. One only has to look at the December half-yearly review, which was issued just before Christmas in the hope that no one would notice it, to learn of the dire straits that New South Wales is in. New South Wales is heading for a $522 million deficit in 2006-07. There are also admissions in the half-yearly budget review that not only is the Government not going to be able to achieve its targets to reduce net debt and reduce unfunded liabilities, but that the Government's claim of success in reducing net debt over many years is also starting to go backwards.

According to the half-yearly budget review, net debt has blown out by $182 million. Unfunded liabilities will not decrease; they will increase by about $1.2 billion. That is the hidden story of the half-yearly budget review that the Government does not want us to know about. The Government expects to get a pat on the back for its announcement last week of about $90 million over four years in payroll tax relief. One only has to look at the windfall revenues that the Government has received from payroll tax in 2004-05—$188 million—to realise that $90 million over four years will barely touch the sides. It is an insult for the Government to tell businesses that it should be congratulated on its latest initiative when it does not go anywhere near returning the windfall revenue it has received from payroll tax, let alone the more than $5 billion in revenue it receives from that tax every year.

It is the same story in land tax. Last year the Government received windfall revenue of $125 million, but in the meantime valuations have skyrocketed, and there is no cap. That means that more and more people will cross the land tax threshold and more and more people will pay higher council rates and land tax for the first time. The Premier expects to be patted on the back for announcing that he will give back $53 million through land tax threshold changes. However, that is only a drop in the bucket when one learns how much windfall revenue the Government has received from land tax and how many more millions it is set to obtain from the latest round of valuation increases.

Only this week in a paddock in Riverstone the Federal Liberal member for Greenway, Louise Markus, and I held a meeting with about 50 or 60 local landowners. They are all ropeable about the Iemma Government because of the valuation hike rip-offs to which they have been subjected. They said they cannot afford to pay the resulting increase in council rates and that some of them would have to consider selling their homes, their investments for their families, to pay the Premier's land tax bill. The honourable member for Kiama had the hide to try to blame others for the woes of this State. What we heard today from the Premier in relation to tax is an absolute crock. He claimed that he is cutting taxes but we have only to look at his record in creating taxes to realise what nonsense that is.
In the past few months the Premier has increased taxation by about $700 million. He has increased the stamp duty rate on insurance products from 5 per cent to 9 per cent, costing each family an additional $50, and each business an additional $100. He increased the waste and environment levy and extended payroll tax by implementing a range of new measures that were never before dutiable. There have been new mining charges to pay for government regulation, and there have also been extensions to land tax so that land transactions and ownership are now taxable. There have also been new measures on mortgage duty. The Premier increased 11 charges ahead of time, including Sydney Water charges, Heritage Office fees, Hunter Water charges and Department of Lands fees.

The Premier also forced vendor duty victims to fork out $60 million more in tax to suit his own cynical announcement timetable. We cannot believe the Premier on tax and we cannot believe he is serious about reining in waste and expenditure. He is interested only in casting about for other people to blame. The budget is in such a desperate crisis that he is willing to blame anyone for the disgusting situation in which Australia's premier State finds itself. That should not have occurred. [Time expired.]

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [4.22 p.m.]: I commend the honourable member for Kiama for bringing this urgent matter to the attention of the House. We support the Premier in his determination to end the Commonwealth Government's GST rip-off. The honourable member for Kiama said that in relation to this issue the Leader of the Opposition likes to point the finger everywhere other than at the Federal Government. Rather than fight for the rights of families from Penrith and Vaucluse he is happy to sit back and let Peter Costello present a flimsy case as to why we do not deserve our missing $3 billion. The Leader of the Opposition does not have the backbone for the fight, but I am appalled that other Opposition members are trying to defeat this motion—for example, the honourable member for Southern Highlands, who spoke about everything but the GST.

Other Opposition members are copying the lazy approach of the Leader of the Opposition rather than working with the Government to achieve a better deal for New South Wales. Mr Costello referred to State governments "fighting over slices of the GST cake", but there is something seriously wrong with that cake. This is our money. The Federal Liberal-National Government has a $12 billion surplus. In that paddock at Riverstone a week ago I am sure the honourable member for Southern Highlands did not speak to the Federal member for Greenway about that surplus. Riverstone residents—indeed, everyone in New South Wales—could benefit from our missing GST billions through the provision of essential services such as health, disability services, home and community care, transport and housing.

Peter Costello must realise that if he wants to be Prime Minister he must act in the interests of all Australians. He should not engage in political arguments and blame his problems on Labor and the people of New South Wales. The Leader of the Opposition should wake up to the fact that he will never gain any credibility with taxpayers in New South Wales by parroting the Federal Victorian Treasurer's flimsy arguments. We deserve a fairer distribution of GST revenues for the families that we represent. Will Opposition members stand with the families and taxpayers of New South Wales—I doubt it—or will they stand with their political friends in Canberra? Will they deny the families and taxpayers of this State their fair share of GST revenue? It is money for which they have worked and which they are losing. They deserve to have more of that GST revenue remain in New South Wales.

The Leader of the Opposition is too lazy to argue the case with Peter Costello, which is a disgrace. Has he even bothered to appeal to the Prime Minister, whose constituents in Bennelong are being dudded under current arrangements? One thing that should motivate us all is the desire to secure more services and better infrastructure for our constituents. They have placed their trust and faith in each of us to fight hard to achieve those outcomes. The difference between the Iemma Government and the Debnam-led Opposition is fundamental: we will never walk away from this fight.

Opposition members can criticise us for bringing this great GST rip-off to the attention of the public and they can blame taxpayers from other States and Territories. However, one thing they seem unwilling to do is to send a clear message to the people in Canberra, who can fix it, that New South Wales families and taxpayers, and even the Governor of the Reserve Bank, realise the undeniable truth that we are being ripped off to the tune of $3 billion a year. The more Opposition members hide behind juvenile arguments and name calling, the more we see through them. Families in New South Wales know that a clear message should be sent to Canberra.

Opposition members could take their cue from the Leader of the Opposition—they could sit on the sidelines and carp and whinge—or they could be working for the people of New South Wales. If they claim to represent the interests of their constituents they should send a message to those who can make a change. They should ask the Treasurer in Canberra for more police, hospitals and schools. They will not even try to put an end to a scam that is hoodwinking the people we represent: the people of New South Wales. I would like to know whether Opposition members have appealed to their Federal counterparts. If they have they should vote with Government members on this motion. If they have an ounce of decency they will support the motion. For once they should put aside the interests of the Federal Government and take up the cause of the families and taxpayers they represent. Do not betray them in favour of a greedy Federal Treasurer from Melbourne: vote with Government members in support of this urgent motion.

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [4.27 p.m.]: What curious contributions we heard this afternoon from Government members on just about every issue. Let us look at the problem. First, this motion attempts to congratulate the Premier on his unrelenting fight to end the great GST rip-off. As I demonstrated during question time, the Premier attended two Council of Australian Governments meetings and he failed, refused or whatever to ask for the GST arrangements to be put on the agenda. He played to the media when he got into trouble and the financial audit was about to be released.

I assume that Government members who are in the Chamber simply have not read that 70-page financial audit. If they had they would know it is a damning indictment of the Government's administration over the past 11 years. Every paragraph of that 70-page audit talks about the prudent budgetary practices that should have been place in New South Wales over the past 11 years. Every alternate paragraph states that those practices have not been in place to protect the people of New South Wales. The real issue is that the clowns opposite have been sitting on the Treasury benches burning up the money.

When the audit was about to be released Premier Dilemma decided he needed another distraction. So he reintroduced this GST debate, which I dealt with in the Parliament six months ago on the first sitting day in September last year. I said, "We can all sit here in the New South Wales Parliament and agree that Queenslanders are bludgers." We agree, but now let us do something about it.In September last year, six months ago, the Premier should have left question time in this place, driven to the airport, flown to Queensland and said to Peter Beattie, "We're going to renegotiate the contract". But Premier Dilemma refused to do that. Why? It is because it would require Premier Dilemma renegotiating with each Labor Premier and securing their agreement to changing the arrangements.

Mrs Karyn Paluzzano: Point of order: I am sure there is a standing order about addressing members of Parliament by their correct title. Members of Parliament have surnames. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his racist slur. I would like Hansard to read back how the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Premier.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Penrith is correct in that the standing orders require honourable members to be referred to by their ministerial titles or their electorates. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition take notice of the standing order and resume his speech.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I would like to find out what I said. Can we find out what I said? I thought I referred to the Premier as Premier Dilemma, which is how he is referred to in the media. Is that what the honourable member for Penrith is referring to? Is that the problem, the honourable member does not like Morris Iemma being known as Premier Dilemma?

Mrs Karyn Paluzzano: Point of order—

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I have already ruled on the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his speech.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I will go back to discussing Premier Dilemma. The problem in New South Wales is that the financial audit was about to see the light of day and the Premier needed a distraction. So he began to talk again about the GST arrangements—six months after I offered to go with him to renegotiate those arrangements with each State Premier. Why did the Premier not do that? It is because no Labor member is interested in financial distributions or financial management. If we look back over the 11 years of Labor's stewardship of this State we will see that the spending Ministers are out of control. Former Treasurer Michael Egan decided that he had only one strategy to deal with his Labor colleagues: outrun them. He began to do that in 1996-97. Thereafter, he took the opportunity to raise taxes and charges in this State twice a year. He eventually broke the back of this State.
That fact is reflected in every single economic indicator for New South Wales. It has the lowest growth and high unemployment. New South Wales is not attracting investment; there is no wealth creation. It has an enormous bureaucracy. Jobs are not created in this State because businesses do not regard New South Wales as an attractive investment environment. That is the problem. As to getting the money back from the bludgers in Queensland, I am happy to help the Government. But it will require Premier Dilemma working with us and renegotiating the GST arrangements with the other State Premiers. Let us go and do it.

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.32 p.m.]: The Leader of the Opposition has again insulted the people of Queensland. Those opposite indulge in name calling and attacking the Government rather than joining us in saying to the Federal Government and Peter Costello, "Send us back the $3 billion of the $13 billion that New South Wales pays each year in GST". The Commonwealth Treasurer has the ultimate responsibility for determining the distribution of GST funding among the States. The intergovernmental agreement states that the:

… relativity factor for a State or Territory will be determined by the Commonwealth Treasurer after he has consulted with each State and Territory.

Peter Costello does not need to conduct a review to tell him that the taxpayers of New South Wales are paying too much money. The Premier has already told the Treasurer and John Howard. Ian Macfarlane, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, has made it very clear that the GST is unfair to the hardworking people of New South Wales. The New South Wales Government is not telling the hardworking people of Queensland that we want to make this decision; the decision is for Peter Costello to make.

I am proud to be the member for Newcastle and to represent in this place the hardworking business people and factory workers who are generating GST payments for the Commonwealth Government. But we say to the Commonwealth Government: Be fair and send the money back. The current arrangements treat New South Wales taxpayers very unfairly and continue to provide cross-subsidies to the resource-rich States of Queensland and Western Australia. Those cash-rich, mineral-rich States have accumulated massive surpluses. For example, the Western Australian Government can afford to spend $1 billion on expanding the rail system to Mandurah. The Queensland Government can afford to purchase the Australian Railroad Group Pty Ltd, the Western Australian heavy rail freight system, and go into competition with Pacific National. They are rotten rich with money at the moment, but it is not the fault of the Queensland people. How dare the Leader of the Opposition call the people of Queensland bludgers instead of dealing with the real issue in this debate.

The crux of the matter is the unfair allocation of GST revenue. Since the introduction of the GST the States have received a total of $4.3 billion more than they would have received under the old tax arrangements. But the taxpayers of New South Wales have consistently missed out. Only in 2004-05 did we receive more from the GST than we would have received under the old system. But we got a net gain of only $209 million in that year from a total of $4.3 billion. That is $31 per person compared with $297 per person in the rest of Australia. New South Wales taxpayers have received the lowest gains by far. The Northern Territory has received $1,825 per capita; Tasmania has received $530; Queensland, the ore-rich area of Australia, has received $458 per person; the Australian Capital Territory has received $426 per capita; Western Australia, $281; South Australia, $256; and Victoria has received $95 per capita. However, New South Wales has received just $31 per person. That is right: Queensland has received GST gains of $458 per person while we have got $31. No-one can claim that that is a fair distribution of revenue to a State that does not have the rich mineral resources that are currently driving the economies of Western Australia and Queensland.

We have said clearly that we are very happy to share the distribution of GST revenue with the Northern Territory, South Australia and Tasmania—the States that are struggling. But the current arrangements are patently unfair. I call on Opposition members to forget the prating of the Leader of the Opposition and join Labor members in saying to the Howard Government and Peter Costello: Return a fair rate of GST to the hardworking men and women of New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.37 p.m.], in reply: A number of honourable members have contributed to this debate but the only good performances were by my colleagues the honourable member for Newcastle and the honourable member for Penrith, who articulated clearly the needs of their communities and why this State requires a better deal. For some bizarre reason the Leader of the Opposition did not lead for the Opposition in this debate; in fact, he was the supporting speaker. Instead the honourable member for Southern Highlands misled the House. She claimed that State taxes are too high. But one of the reasons New South Wales does not receive as much money as it should under the GST formula is that the Grants Commission says that the New South Wales Government should be taxing property owners even more.
That is clearly spelt out in Grants Commission reports. The contradiction of that finding by the honourable member for Southern Highlands is a clear demonstration that she is not on top of this issue. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Premier should catch a plane to Queensland, sit down with the Queensland Premier and say, "Listen, why don't we take some money away from your State so that we can have it?" If the Leader of the Opposition thinks such an agreement will be reached he must think also that pigs fly backwards to Mars. He has no idea. I believe the Queensland Premier would want to keep as much money as possible for his constituents.

Mr Thomas George: Is that right?

Mr MATT BROWN: Yes. The honourable member for Lismore has no idea. He thinks the Leader of the Liberal Party can go to Queensland and persuade the Premier to give back money to New South Wales. It is very simple: the Federal Government is the mob that has control over GST revenues. The Treasurer is the person in the Federal Government in charge of GST revenues, as is stated clearly in legislation. In fact, it is stated at least three times in Federal legislation and in related documents. For example, it is stated in the Tax Act. Section 9 of the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 states:

The relativities factor for a state for the GST year is the factor determined in writing by—

guess who?

the Treasurer.

That is, the Federal Treasurer. The relativities factor is the factor that determines the share of the GST funding pool allocated to each State. The Intergovernmental Agreement on GST talks about how moneys are to be distributed. It states:

The relativity factor for a State or Territory will be determined by the Commonwealth Treasurer after he has consulted with each State and Territory.

It is determined by the Federal Treasurer after consultation. However, it does not say that there has to be agreement. The Opposition says that all the States must agree, but that is not right. The Federal Treasurer has the final say after consultation. The Commonwealth Grants Commission is purely an advisory body to the Federal Treasurer, as set out in the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 and as every independent Commonwealth body has confirmed. In its review of State revenue sharing relativities in 2004, the Grants Commission stated:

The Commission's advice on per capita relativities is considered by the Ministerial Council for Commonwealth State Financial relations.

Following that consideration, the Australian Government Treasurer determines how the revenues are to be shared.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics stated:

… the Commonwealth exercises its influence and discretion over the setting of GST and the distribution of its proceeds.

A Federal Treasury bureaucrat, Mr Wilcock, provided an answer in response to Senate estimates questioning on 2 June 2005. He stated:

Section 9 of the GST legislation accords to the Treasurer the role of determining the relativities that determine the grants to the States.

The Leader of the Opposition should stop the nonsense of saying "Come on Premier, let's go up and talk to Premier Beattie." Even if he did that, it would have no legal effect. The only person who can change the arrangements is Peter Costello in the Federal Government. We ask him to give a better deal to every electorate and every person in this State.

Motion agreed to.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.43 p.m.]: I ask the House to show its unqualified support for New South Wales wheat farmers and to condemn the Howard Government and the Australian Wheat Board [AWB] for the damage they have done to single desk marketing through their actions in the Iraq oil for food wheat scandal. I understand and appreciate that members of The Nationals will be torn between joining the Government in supporting this matter of public importance or wagging the tail of their Liberal masters. I urge them to listen to wheat farmers, who remain steadfast in their support for a single desk approach to wheat marketing, as does Country Labor. Current figures show that 80 per cent of Australian wheat farmers support the single desk concept. Once again, The Nationals are left with an agonising choice: defend their constituents, the wheat growers of this State, or file behind the Liberals—the chorus of carpers once again led by Peter Costello, the Federal Treasurer—who are hell-bent on destroying the single desk once and for all.

Day by day, the Cole inquiry is uncovering a litany of deceit and convenient memory lapses. The actions of AWB board members and executives have brought shame upon Australia. Just as disturbing is the Sergeant Schultz defence adopted by the Howard Government_once again they "know nothing". It is an old refrain and one that people across New South Wales and Australia are thoroughly sick and tired of. Whether by design or gross negligence, the Prime Minister, the current and former Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade, the agriculture Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Foreign Affairs want to distance themselves from a $300 million kick-back scandal as quickly as they can. This is money that has gone into the pocket of Saddam Hussein. Who will be the ultimate victims of this scandal? Australian wheat farmers. Earlier today, Bloomberg Financial News reported that the Prime Minister may be edging towards Treasurer Costello's favoured position—the end of the single desk. In signalling a review of AWB's monopoly, Mr Howard said:

What we ought to do is keep separate the long-term future of the single desk.

There are certainly very strong arguments that if one is going to get rid of the single desk, one will only agree to do so in return for concessions in Australia's favor in the international trading environment.

If Mark Vaile is to be believed, Iraq, which banned wheat shipments from AWB while it is being investigated, will buy wheat from other Australian producers. However, Mark Vaile has nothing to offer Australian wheat growers—they have no certainty and no security. The actions of AWB were allowed to go unchecked by a succession of Howard Government Ministers. At stake is one of our most critical agricultural markets. Iraq was the third biggest buyer of Australian wheat in the year ended June 2005. It is tendering to buy one million metric tonnes of the grain. Thanks to AWB and the inaction and incompetence of the Howard Government, Australian wheat growers may be locked out. That is a shameful situation by any standard. Australia is the world's second biggest exporter of wheat—a position coveted by our international competitors. Australian wheat farmers are efficient. The quality of Australian wheat is attractive on the world market.

The single desk system of wheat marketing, developed by the Australian grains industry, is the only competitive advantage that its farmers have in this environment. It is a self-funded wheat marketing system—it has no government support—that does not distort trade. Yet our competitors_countries that heavily subsidise their growers_quite clearly want to strip this advantage away from Australian producers. Amongst them is our great ally, the United States of America. The Prime Minister and other Ministers can use their supposed warm and glowing relationship to get the message across that Australian wheat farmers are being dudded in this area. Guess who is cheering from the side line to get rid of the single desk? The champion of free economics, Peter Costello. Coalition members are well aware_it has been no secret_that Peter Costello has always wanted to get rid of the single desk. Yesterday Kevin Rudd confirmed his support for the single desk. It is a policy of the New South Wales Labor Party and the Federal Labor Party to support the single desk for wheat. In marked contrast, I refer to the Age on 2 February 2006, which stated:

TREASURER Peter Costello has declared he favours breaking AWB's monopoly on marketing Australia's wheat exports, a step that would meet strong Nationals resistance.

Mr Costello said yesterday that under present law, licences could be issued for others to make wheat export sales.

"The trouble is nobody has ever been given such a licence," he told the ABC. "If you ask me, in appropriate circumstances these licences should be given and that is something that the Government will have to look at."

But what do you expect from the man ultimately responsible for luring The Nationals very own rat, Julian McGauran, over to the Victorian Liberals? I challenge The Nationals to adopt the stance of their Federal counterparts and join Country Labor in condemning the actions of AWB and the Howard Government. This collection of ratbags and ostriches has done more to damage the image of Australian agriculture than anything that we have come across before. The challenge for the New South Wales Nationals is this: Is the single desk an act of faith for them—as it is, for instance, for Senator Ron Boswell of Queensland? Country Labor believes it is. We back our farmers, and we should stick with the single desk. Let me make it clear: If bribes were paid to the former Iraqi regime, that is reprehensible and unforgivable, and the perpetrators ought to be prosecuted. However, if the price of this action is the end of the single desk, we can only point the finger at the government of the day—and that is the Howard Government. The Federal Government is more concerned with self-preservation than with the interests of Australian wheat farmers. As the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Kim Beazley, told the Age:

Does anyone actually believe that Government ministers would not be advised of contract variations the scale of which could not conceivably have gone unnoticed at ministerial level?

They claim to hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. But I suspect they knew—and I intend to get to the truth.

Seventy per cent of Australians believe that people in the Federal Government knew what was going on, despite the protestations of Lord Downer of Baghdad and others. If they did not, that would be gross incompetence. There were enough signals sent to them along the way to make them mildly suspicious. Other signals sent to them along the way should have caused alarm bells to ring. I am not talking about last month; I am talking about two and three years ago. There have been plenty of alarm bells to prompt ministerial jurisprudence on this matter. They ought take the responsibility that goes with that. Kim Beazley went on to say:

The record of this Government showed they often have a very restricted definition of being provided with information … that unless a piece of paper signed by an authoritative officer turns up in front of them, then they don't officially know.

If what they've had is a conversation with someone at some point of time, and that information has been passed on to them verbally, then that doesn't count.

I think what's going on here is a convenient sleight of hand.

Unless it had formally appeared before them in a document signed by the Australian Wheat Board, then of course they didn't know.

On behalf of New South Wales wheat growers, I throw down the gauntlet to the New South Wales Nationals: Join Country Labor and defend the single desk marketing arrangements for wheat against Treasurer Peter Costello's clear intention that the Federal Government license more exporters. Members of The Nationals know as well as we do that losing the single desk would be a massive blow to our farmers. They would need business training, and managing that change would be required. Sadly, even Mark Vaile acknowledges that changes to the single desk marketing structure are inevitable—another example of how The Nationals will be rolled by the Liberals on every occasion, at every turn. Mark Vaile is showing clear signs of going to water on this issue.

You cannot dress it up with "consultation". We could be looking at a multiple-sellers structure, involving the four sisters—the AWB, the Australian Barley Board, Co-operative Bulk Handling and GrainCorp. Mark Vaile is under terrible pressure: he has to toe the Liberal line_the Government should keep an open mind on this matter. That is not good enough for New South Wales, and it is not good enough for Australia. Wheat farmers should not be left to pay the penalty. I commend the motion to the House. I expect it will have bipartisan support. As a person who worked in the coal industry for a long time, I know what it was like to have individual exporters going to Japan every year, only to be divided, pitted against one another and picked off one after the other. It took a long time for the coal industry to wake up. The wheat board has had this system in place for 70-odd years, and we should not in any way, shape or form let the single desk system be a casualty of the incompetence of AWB and the know-nothing attitude of Federal Ministers.

Mr IAN SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [4.53 p.m.]: Opposition members totally support the single desk system of marketing.

Mr Peter Black: You supported the price too, didn't you?

Mr IAN SLACK-SMITH: Yes. The third-largest exporter is the wheat industry. New South Wales produces 40 per cent of the Australian wheat crop. Interestingly, only 3 per cent of the world's production comes from Australia; 97 per cent is grown in other countries, such as the United States of America, Canada and the European Union. The Australian wheat industry is worth about $5.6 billion a year, as is instanced by the 26 million tonnes of wheat grown in the 2003-04 crop. Some 25,000 farmers produce that annual crop. Many towns, including the majority of towns in my electorate, and the communities they support, are dependent on wheat crops to provide their prosperity.

Marketing is the most important aspect of any agricultural product, as it is for any commerce. Australia can grow many crops, but our biggest problem is in marketing. We can, and do, grow the best mangoes, the best avocadoes and the best rice in the world, but it is marketing that makes our industries strong. Marketing is probably our most important tool in a very unfair world market. Let us face it: world trade has been a very dirty business since the 1930s. Here in Australia we are throwing our hands up in horror about what the Australian Wheat Board [AWB] did. It is amazing that of the 2,253 different companies, from 66 different countries, listed as giving bribes to the former Saddam Hussein regime, only one company, here in Australia, has been the subject of an investigation.

By far the greatest amount of prime hard wheat grown in Australia is produced in the north-west of New South Wales and Central West of New South Wales, and people in those areas are telling me that they believe the Federal Australian Labor Party is the best friend that United States wheat associates have ever had. Though everyone believes what AWB did was wrong, I think we have got to be realistic in the face of the fact that 2,253 companies were doing exactly the same thing. It is rather unfortunate that AWB is the only company being investigated, and that of the 66 countries, Australia is the only country doing something about it. That goes to prove, I think, how crooked, messy and dirty world trade is.

Mr Joseph Tripodi: Then why did you sign off on the free trade agreement?

Mr IAN SLACK-SMITH: Minister, if you think politics in New South Wales is a dirty game, you ought to be involved in world trade! I repeat, 2,253 companies from 66 countries were doing exactly the same thing that AWB was doing. I am not condoning what AWB did. All I am saying is that we should get this issue in perspective, and avoid destroying the single desk marketing system. It is not perfect, but it is the best marketing tool Australia has. The Minister should tell Kevin Rudd to lay off, because the United States wheat associates are loving every minute of this. Every time Kevin Rudd says something, they applaud him as the best mate they have got. Iraq is Australia's fifth-largest market. The Minister might talk about dirty tricks and dirty policies, but 32 per cent of the income of United States farmers comes from subsidies. In the European Union it is 37 per cent.

Mr Joseph Tripodi: So blame the Federal Labor Opposition for that?

Mr IAN SLACK-SMITH: The Minister knows there are two ways of providing market support. The single desk marketing system must remain—if not with AWB, then in some shape or form—otherwise farmer will be opposed by farmer. The marketer of the wheat produced in Australia should not see farmer pitted against farmer; it should be competing against the major grain corporations of the world, which, before 1930, had Australian wheat growers by the throat. Farmer competing against farmer resulted in all farmers taking the lowest price, with the result that the industry was on its knees. The only way to support our farmers is by having a single desk competing against the big, world grain traders.

In 12 months ConAgra trades approximately 10 times the Australian wheat crop. Continental Grains and Bunge are huge multinational corporations. Our biggest competition is not the wheat farmers but the United States of America, which will do anything to try to take our markets and put them into its kitty. It is trying like mad to do exactly the same thing with the Japanese beef industry, but so far we are keeping them out. The only reason we have been successful in Iraq is quite simple: We have the best quality wheat in the world. The wheat we produce is the best they can get. It is a great product sold at a high price. The only reason we are able to sell our products into these markets is strict segregation, strict plant breeding and strict quality assurance from planting all the way through to the end market. We are not selling them because of price. If price were a factor we would not be in the game at all.

We have a large parcel of product. It is always easier to sell a few hundred thousand tonnes of grain of one grade, blend or specification than it is to sell 30,000 or 40,000 tonnes here and 20,000 tonnes there. It is a great bargaining tool to have a large quantity of good quality product, which is exactly what a single desk enables us to do, at your fingertips. I do not know what the future of the AWB is, but I know that on behalf of the wheat growers of Australia we must ensure that the single desk remains under the control of growers. The AWB is a listed company, it is not controlled by the Government. It is a private company owned by shareholders, the majority of whom are farmers. It must be grower controlled because one cannot serve two masters. When the managing director of the cotton industry was serving not only growers but also the big shareholders we learned that it does not work.

We support the single desk. It is the only way we can get a fair return on our product. I have a vested interest in the discussion, because I grow wheat. It is interesting to note that two days ago I forward sold wheat for $20 per tonne more than I received this year through the AWB. Consequently, there is still a lot of hope. There is still a lot of confidence in the AWB. The system is fine, but the management leaves a lot to be desired. We should not jump the gun, but rather wait until the Cole inquiry has been completed. A lot of facts and figures coming out of the inquiry are one sided, led by the media. Let us take a deep breath, sit back, smell the roses, wait until the report is completed and then make a decision. At the moment many people are firing from the hip. We still do not know the full extent of the inquiry. Let us wait until the inquiry is finished and then we can work out what is going on. Kevin Rudd is the best friend wheat growers in the United States of America have ever had.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [5.03 p.m.]: We have heard an interesting contribution from the Opposition, which supports the single desk. I suppose Opposition members will support it in a similar way to the way in which they supported the single desk for rice, but they then allowed the Federal Government to bully the New South Wales Government into abolishing it. The honourable member for Barwon made an interesting comment that Australia is the only country out of 66 that is having an investigation. He said it was unfortunate that the Australian Wheat Board [AWB] was being investigated. Clearly he is adopting the attitude that John Howard displays all the time: You are guilty of being found out, rather than being guilty of doing something that is wrong and illegal. Yes, the honourable member opposite was right when he said that world trade is not pure. However, Australia used to be able to go to world trade negotiations as an honest trader, as a trading country that approached trade with moral certainty and fibre. That position has been destroyed by the actions of the AWB in Iraq.

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the Coalition Government in Canberra did not know about this program. The smoking gun has been out there, but those opposite and their colleagues in Canberra blindly try to deny it. We have heard evidence from the Cole inquiry that senior bureaucrats in Howard's Government were warned five years ago that Iraq was trying to corrupt the oil for food program. It was outlined to the Federal Government in a diplomatic cable dated 10 April 2001 from an official at Australia's permanent mission to the United Nations in New York, and it was distributed to the Prime Minister, Alexander Downer, Mark Vaile and the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Warren Truss. In 2003 the Federal Government was warned again. At the same time as John Howard was frightening Australians and telling them that Saddam Hussein must be overthrown because he was financing terrorism around the world, he more than likely was aware that the AWB was financing some of Saddam Hussein's operations.

Some 70 per cent of Australians believe that the Federal Government knew about it. However, if it did not know about it, as it says, it should resign for failing to recognise the hints and the warnings and for turning a blind eye. It should be sacked for incompetence. The Howard Government in Canberra has allowed the Australian wheat growers to fall into an appalling situation because of its incompetence or its deliberate turning of a blind eye to this unethical trade with Saddam Hussein. The Federal Government has put Australian wheat growers in a situation where the single desk is now under threat. We have seen The Nationals, despite their comments in this House today and despite Mark Vaile turning up in desperation to a rally of farmers, absolutely failing in their duty. It is very clear from the cables that The Nationals should have been aware of the situation and should have been ringing warning bells. However, today we heard a member of The Nationals in this place say that AWB's crime was to be found out.

In this discussion we are seeing why The Nationals representation has slumped so low and why, recently, Julian McGauran joined the Liberal Party, which depleted the numbers of The Nationals even further. We are seeing why The Nationals representatives in New South Wales have dropped from 20 in 1998 to 12, and their numbers will drop even further at the next election. They have failed to stand up for their former constituents. After Julian McGauran's resignation and defection to the Liberal Party, The Nationals had a crisis meeting in Sydney at which they said, "We are going to get out there and we are going to push our own policies." That very same week Peter Costello said, "I think the single desk is gone. We are going to have to get rid of it." Peter McGauran, bowing over to the Liberals once again, said, "It is all up to negotiation. Peter Costello is right." Obviously, Mark Vaile was told by his pollsters, "If we are going to have a separate policy we had better start with this one." He then contradicted Peter McGauran.

We are all well aware of what is going to happen in the process. Because of the failure and the absolute ignorance of the Howard Government, if not its corruption in turning a blind eye to this process, Australian wheat farmers will be put under threat. Because the Howard Government ignored what the AWB was doing for so long, our wheat farmers find themselves in this situation. No amount of pious words from members opposite will stop that from happening. The only thing that will stop it from happening is if the Liberal Party in Canberra gets behind Australian farmers and guarantees that the single desk will continue, because it has failed to deal so with rice and so many other industries.
Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [5.08 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members who contributed to this matter of public importance. I was a little bit confused by the contribution of the honourable member for Barwon. I acknowledge some of the technical points he made, but his logic is that somehow or another it is Kevin Rudd's fault if the single desk is under threat. He is drawing a longbow. Yesterday in the media Kevin Rudd supported the single desk, which is Federal Labor Party policy that we support at the State level.

The message is simple: Labor is asking The Nationals to join a number of their Federal colleagues who have been outspoken on the matter. There has been absolute silence from the Leader of The Nationals in New South Wales, Andrew Stoner, who concentrates on city matters. With the exception of one member who has just left the Chamber, he is following that great tradition of leaders of The Nationals in this place who spent all their time at Darling Harbour or the eastern suburbs. Ever since Julian McGauran ratted and went across to the Liberal Party, the Leader of The Nationals has been struck dumb on this issue. He does not want to talk about relationships in the Coalition.

Mr Steve Whan: He cannot understand why he did not get an invitation.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: Exactly. He is a de facto member of the Liberal Party in New South Wales. The honourable member for Barwon also has disappeared from the Chamber, and I hope he is phoning his Federal colleagues to say, "Look, the single desk is inviolable." The Nationals are saying, "Under no circumstances should the single desk go", but Peter Costello is saying, "It has got to go." Certainly it has been one of the planks of Peter Costello's platform that he does not want the single desk. Through the incompetence and negligence of the Australian Wheat Board [AWB], a golden opportunity to get rid of the single desk has been delivered to Peter Costello and the Liberals.

Mr Steve Whan: It is a litmus test.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: It is a litmus test for The Nationals at the Federal level, but Labor wants the State Nationals to send the message to their Federal Coalition colleagues that they intend to be an effective part of the Federal Coalition, which, obviously, they are not at the moment. This is an opportunity to really put the acid on John Howard and let him jump on Peter Costello. That is the way it should work. We have already heard that the Prime Minister is becoming edgy about the issue. The Federal Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, has been pretty weak on this issue from the first day that the AWB revelations were made. He described the effect as terrible and feared that the controversy would put the single desk at risk. The Cole inquiry is not about the single desk.

Mr Steve Whan: He was the Minister. He knew about it.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: Exactly. There was a conga line of Ministers who missed all the warning shots that had been fired across the bow, and it was not as though the warnings were subtle. The honourable member for Monaro outlined the details in his speech and pointed out that it has been approximately three years since the warning shots were fired across the bow. Since that time, the Prime Minister, the Federal Treasurer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Trade were all saying, "We did not know. They did not tell us." Part of the mantle of being an efficient and effective Minister is to follow the issues and ensure that ministerial staff follow up issues that may put important arrangements at risk. There is nothing more important to the wheat industry than the single desk because 80 per cent of Australian farmers support it. In recent weeks Australian farmers have been out in force and have been sending a message to The Nationals, pleading with them not to kowtow to the Liberal Party at the national level. The New South Wales Labor Party wants The Nationals in New South Wales to have something to say.

The Leader of The Nationals has not said a word about it. He is certainly not in the Chamber and he has not made any contribution to this matter of public importance. He certainly has made no public statements in relation to the AWB matter or the defection of Julian McGauran to the Liberal Party. It is only a matter of time in New South Wales before more defections to the Liberal Party occur. I give Senator Ron Boswell from Queensland his due because he is out there and involved in the debate. He is as feisty as ever and has said, "We are not going to be stood over on this issue."

However, the signs are crystal clear. Unless The Nationals go to war on this issue with the Coalition, the single desk is under dire threat. Treasurer Costello wants it to go and the Prime Minister secretly would like it to go but is uttering pious platitudes that are being directed at The Nationals. As recently as today the Prime Minister indicated that the issue may have to be re-examined. If the AWB gets rid of its present management, it will be able to carry on effectively because it is quite a competent organisation that has been in business for 70 years and has all the structures in place. However, it is incumbent upon the Government of the day to ensure that the Australian Wheat Board does its job properly, without putting the vital Australian wheat industry at risk. I commend this matter of public importance to the House.

Discussion concluded.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! It being 5.15 p.m. the House will now deal with General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices).

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

Mr PAUL GIBSON (Blacktown) [5.29 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the concerns of constituents in my electorate and some truck drivers about the number of heavy vehicles, including trucks, that travel along our roads. In the near future changes to be made to the Port Botany area will result in a threefold increase in the number of trucks using the M4. If appropriate plans are not implemented now we could be in all sorts of bother in years to come. I refer to the freight forecasts recently released by the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics which show that by the year 2020 domestic Australian freight load carried by road transport will comprise almost half, or 42 per cent, of the total national freight task. Forecasts for freight movements to 2020 clearly show that, if no action is taken, an additional 50,000 trucks will be on Australian roads by 2020. Semi-trailers, B-doubles and other forms of articulated trucks are expected to comprise over half that increase. About one-third, or 17,000 to 20,000, of those trucks will be registered and used in New South Wales, with many of the remaining 30,000-odd trucks regularly entering and transiting New South Wales on roads and highways that connect Victoria, Queensland and South Australia.

Let us face it, road transport is the dominant mode for freight movements and will remain the dominant mode for at least the next 10 to 15 years. That means trucks will be carrying up to 500 billion-tonne kilometres by 2020. For the comparatively short haul freight routes—Sydney to Melbourne, Adelaide to Sydney, or Sydney to Brisbane—almost all that freight load will be carried by trucks on New South Wales roads. Developments in technologies used in trucks and the changes to national regulations regarding the use of trucks mean that freight can be moved faster and cheaper by road than by any other transport mode.

There is no practical alternative to trucks for freight movements to warehouses, retail outlets, construction sites and homes, so looking to other transport modes like rail for a solution is not available or practical. Only trucks offer a flexible door-to-door or centre-to-centre service that is capable of handling small shipment sizes through to bulk freight. If the forecasts of the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economic are accurate—and I believe they are—one in four vehicles on Sydney's metropolitan roads will be a commercial vehicle by 2020, with associated impacts on production costs, road congestion, road safety, the environment and residential amenity.

What does that mean for communities in New South Wales? We might have to look at a smarter way of using our road system and we might have to look differently at our roads. It has been suggested in the past that we might have to ban heavy vehicles from Sydney roads in peak hours so we do not get the gridlock and bottlenecks that are so prevalent today. Jurisdictions in other countries have had similar problems. I recently visited Moscow—a trip that was fairly widely publicised—and established that Moscow has a 20-kilometre or 30-kilometre outer boundary. Trucks cannot go past that 20-kilometre or 30-kilometre zone. Large trucks cannot enter Moscow city; they have to offload their shipments onto smaller trucks.
If B-doubles or semi-trailers need to go into the centre of Moscow, special permission is applied for and given to them to travel at a given time into the city of Moscow. Come the year 2020 we will have an additional 50,000 trucks on our roads. By the year 2020 one in four vehicles on Sydney's roads will be a heavy vehicle. It is time for us to alleviate these problems so we are able to jump the hurdles with which we will be presented in 2020.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [5.34 p.m.]: Tonight I refer to the violence that occurred in my electorate in December last year. As a result of inadequate police resourcing—an issue that has been drawn to the attention of this Government for some time—we witnessed many tragic scenes. Before this Government was elected Cronulla had a fully functioning police patrol in its own right, with a chief inspector, two senior sergeants, nine sergeants, 41 constables, a mobile response team, beat police, its own charging facilities and cells, and a full-time strength of 53 officers.

In 2001 I held a public meeting to discuss the deterioration of law and order in Cronulla. Geoff Schuberg, a former New South Wales assistant police commissioner, was one of the speakers at that public meeting. After that meeting his expertise was so highly regarded he became adviser to police Minister Costa. I suggest that this Government, in the time remaining to it, would benefit greatly from listening to his advice. Mr Schuberg said that the 1997 amalgamation of Cronulla and Miranda police stations into one local area command was not working. He said:

Police in this area are barely coping. Cronulla needs a proactive police presence. We need police on foot in the mall, a combination of mobile and beat police at the beaches and police tasked to proactively target trouble spots. Police with a strategic plan aimed at getting knives and guns and anti-social behaviour off our streets.

In December, January and February, under Operation Seta, large numbers of police were deployed to the Cronulla area, but that has come to an end and Operation Beachsafe is now in place. That high visibility of uniformed police meant there were no problems on New Year's Eve and no problems on Australia Day, both of which could have been flashpoints. Local businesses suffered grievously as a result of events in December. The Government placed a number of advertisements in newspapers relating to beaches. I would like to know what were the performance indicators for those advertisements, what they achieved and how much more assistance the Government will be providing to ensure no jobs are lost in Cronulla.

I am pleased that local people have heeded the Government's calls to return to the area and to resume business in Cronulla. Restaurants are open and are now providing excellent fare. Not only local people have returned to the area; people outside the shire are also visiting. Recently the honourable member for East Hills visited the shire and he recommends breakfast at south Cronulla. A number of people have complained to me about what appears to be a discrepancy. A large number of people, many of them living outside the shire, were arrested after the events on Sunday. For weeks nobody was arrested after the reprisal raids, which were vicious and saw people stabbed and bashed and an enormous amount of property damage inflicted in a calculated and military-like exercise.

People asked me why the police did not intervene when a convoy of cars came from Lakemba to Cronulla. I was told that a large number of traffic breaches occurred which would have justified police intervention in stopping that convoy. The police told people, "We could arrest people on Sunday because there was video evidence. However, in relation to events on Monday night there was no video evidence." Five weeks later a security video became available to police. I make no criticism of the Commissioner of Police but I ask whether the task force commander reported to him on whether video evidence was available. Was he told that video evidence was available? If he was not, why did he say at a number of press conferences that no video evidence was available? I think the people of Cronulla and the people of this State are entitled to those answers. Did the task force commander report conditions to the commissioner and, if so, what was said?

Mr JOHN BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [5.39 p.m.]: On Sunday 19 February I attended the Williamtown picket line. At that stage the Boeing workers had been on strike for 264 days. These are highly skilled workers who were supposed to benefit from the new Federal industrial relations system. On Sunday 19 February they voted to return to work. I will outline to the House what has transpired. These workers were not union members before they decided that they needed a collective agreement. They simply wanted to negotiate collectively with Boeing to ensure that everyone was treated equally and fairly. However, they have been on strike for nine months because under the new Federal industrial relations dispute resolution procedures there is no way for any arbitration to occur on the issues involved in this dispute. I will not discuss those particular issues today.

About a month ago John Della Bosca, Minister for Industrial Relations, stepped in and asked the State industrial relations system whether there was any way it could get involved in the matter. On Friday 17 February the State industrial system reported that it believed it could intervene in the dispute and directed the striking workers to return to work. So from Friday 17 February to Sunday 19 February—three days—the State industrial relations system acted as a circuit breaker. The Federal industrial relations system provides no such circuit breaker. The workers were out for nine months and there was no way to get them back to work. There is no independent umpire working at a Federal level to resolve problems. Some 91 per cent of all lockouts in Australia occur under Federal awards.

What were the key findings of the Full Bench of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission regarding the Boeing dispute? It delivered a 132-page decision. The Australian Workers Union members took it on board, voted to accept the recommendation and returned to work. I will outline the key findings. Paragraph 139 of the decision states:

… the issues as to particular terms and conditions of employment … seem to us to be of a routine and unremarkable nature … [that] could be promptly and efficiently resolved by this Commission.

In other words, the commission found that there was no major issue that the former Federal arbitration system could not have solved. Paragraph 140 states:

Further, we find that these grievances are not unreasonable in themselves …

Paragraph 157 states:

[Boeing] was unable to give any explanation as to why a collective agreement would not fit in with [its] business objectives.

Paragraph 166 states:

… while Boeing nominally recognises a right for employees to belong to a union, it adopts an approach which, in practical terms, largely denudes that right of any value or substance.

The findings continue:

The system of individual contracts which [Boeing] has established is one, however, which entrenches an inequality in economic and workplace power between Boeing and each of its employees at Williamtown.

Paragraph 164 states:

… a fundamental reason why Boeing values dealing with its employees individually is that it maximises its capacity to determine unilaterally the terms and conditions of employment for its employees, rather than having to accept a negotiated outcome with the inevitable compromises that such an outcome would carry with it.

The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission slammed the policies of Boeing. The company alienated workers for more than nine months, yet it took the State system only three days to get them back to work. If the Federal model is the system that Australia must use in the near future it will be a real shame for industrial relations in this country.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.44 p.m.]: Nimbin is a wonderful town in my electorate of Lismore. I will set the scene for honourable members. I received a letter that is typical of letters and complaints that I receive about Nimbin. The letter reads:

Dear Sir,

Over the holidays we decided to go to a few different places on our travels, and boy did we come across something different. NIMBIN …

I could not explain to my 14yo daughter why I have told her all her life that it is wrong to do drugs and it is illegal as well.

She knows the law about drugs.
My daughter wants to be a lawyer when she finishes school but was totally shocked why the law is not carried out in the little community of Nimbin????

Three times she was asked if she wanted to "score" as they put it.

She watched several people smoking joints in the street.

And then we went into a shop which next door was a café to smoke all you like.

We came across police, but could you tell us why this community has different rules to the rest of the country???

The community has had enough. There is blatant drug use and drug dealing in Nimbin. The town also has problems with alcohol, mental health, homelessness and domestic violence. I sympathise with the majority of Nimbin residents who must put up with violent and antisocial behaviour from a certain section of the community.

I put it on the record that the call for a greater police presence in the area comes from every section of the Nimbin community. I led a community delegation that discussed the issue with the previous Minister for Police. We realise that it is not just a matter for the police; heads of departments in the area have been working together to come up with some solutions to the many problems in Nimbin. However, this afternoon I will focus on the drug scene in the town. Even when there is a media presence in Nimbin the cameras and reporters do not stop people from smoking, and dealing in, drugs. The police are being intimidated. Whenever they make an arrest within five or 10 minutes people arrive to protest against the arrest. They stop the police from doing their jobs. At present only three police officers from a staff of four are stationed at Nimbin and they cannot do their job.

I have always said that Nimbin is the town in the electorate of Lismore that has the most tourism potential. But it needs to be cleaned up and controlled. I have received reports about victims of bashings who are hospitalised with broken limbs but who will not report the crime against them. Why? It is because they are frightened of the consequences if they make a report to the police. The crime statistics do not reveal the real picture at Nimbin. A local newspaper reported recently:

Magistrates are telling the police not to waste their time with petty drug crimes.

That is not acceptable and the community has had enough. Students come to me, as their local member, for help. They say, "Every time we apply for work in Lismore or the surrounding towns and say that we're from Nimbin the interviewer's attitude changes immediately". The residents of Nimbin need our help. We have witnessed riots at Cronulla, Dubbo and Macquarie Fields. If we do not have a proper police presence to bring law and order to Nimbin the New South Wales Government will add Nimbin to that list. Do not say that you have not been warned!

I call on the Minister for Police to provide eight police over and above the present strength at Nimbin and that of the Richmond Local Area Command. Every mayor in the electorate of Lismore is telling the Richmond Local Area Command superintendent not to send officers from their towns to Nimbin. We cannot expect three police to provide the policing required at Nimbin. They are overworked—on many occasions there are no police on duty. We need an additional police presence. Community members have told me that they are sick of the blatant drug use and drug dealing in Nimbin. We must have extra police officers as soon as possible in order to return law and order to a community that needs, and deserves, better. [Time expired.]

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [5.49 p.m.]: I wish to speak about the Cancer Council of New South Wales' local Relay For Life. I was delighted to attend the launch of the Penrith Relay For Life yesterday evening and I commend the Chair, Julia Parashko, for its organisation. It is the fifth year of the Penrith Relay For Life and, as Julia has said, it has truly become an integral part of the lives of all who are associated with it. She states:

Not solely a fundraising platform for cancer, Penrith RFL is an inspiring, fun event that binds us all—however different, with a true sense of community. I urge you to join in, be involved and be inspired.

For the past three of those five years I have joined teams in the Penrith Relay For Life. Last year I joined the My House Realty team and went along in my Relay For Life uniform and walked the laps. I found that you had to dress up as a 1970s tennis star, which was quite interesting. The relay will be held this year on 6-7 May.
Last night we were given a snapshot of the Relay For Life. Over the past five years the relay has raised over $500,000 in Penrith. Here are some of the cancer facts for the Penrith local government area: 2,763 cases of cancer and over 1,100 deaths from cancer were recorded during 1999-2003. The most common cancers diagnosed in Penrith in that time were: breast, 366; colorectal, 350; prostate, 279; lung, 279; and melanoma, 251. The $500,000 to which I referred is part of an overall $7.4 million that the Cancer Council has put through its research programs. What does that mean for Penrith? Over 400 support and information packs were delivered to the Nepean Cancer Care Centre in 2005 to be given to newly diagnosed cancer patients through the Helpline and Cancer Treatment Centres.

The Cancer Council has also supported a community speakers program for the Rotary and Probus Clubs in the Penrith area as well as for business and community groups. The Living with Cancer Education Program has trained facilitators at Nepean Hospital to run a program for cancer patients and their carers. These courses are run regularly throughout the year. There are also cancer trials involving research studies that test new and better ways to prevent, diagnose and treat cancer. The Cancer Council has funded 40 clinical trial nurses in hospitals throughout New South Wales to support 96 cancer clinical trials. At Nepean, the council has funded a clinical trials nurse position since 2002, and it currently funds seven other positions in Western Sydney. Total funding for the clinical trial nurse at Nepean is over $32,000. Through the clinical trials, cancer patients have had access to, and the opportunity to participate in, a range of different cancer trials covering tumour areas of bladder, breast, gastrointestinal, ovarian, prostate and advanced cancer. One of the reasons for the ongoing commitment to the cancer trials program is that people getting treatment as part of a clinical trial do better than people getting the same treatment outside a trial.

The Cancer Council made a contribution of $100,000 towards Hope Cottage, an initiative of the Nepean, Penrith and Penrith Valley Rotary Clubs. It provides on-site accommodation for families of sick children and seriously ill patients receiving treatment at Nepean Hospital. Penrith City Library and the Cancer Council are linked through Understanding Cancer, a pilot project involving 20 public libraries around New South Wales where librarians are trained to give out information so that people do not just search Google for cancer when they go to the library. Trained staff will assist them in accessing and researching their cancer. There is also the SunSmart Childcare Program 2006 through which the Cancer Council goes into child care centres. I commend the Relay For Life and hope members will join me on 6 May.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [5.54 p.m.]: I wish to raise community concerns regarding the performance of Kempsey Shire Council. Over recent years, as the local member in Kempsey, I have received many complaints about decisions made and services provided by the council. These complaints became more frequent and louder last year when the council made a decision to seal the road between Crescent Head and Point Plomer. Ordinarily, I would welcome the sealing of a gravel road between communities. However, the context of the decision was highly extraordinary. First, the council was carrying one of the highest debt levels of any council in the State and needed to borrow funds for the road. Second, the road services very few residents as it leads only to a national park. Third, the council had not long before had a policy of no new sealing of shire roads, rejecting the pleas of residents along other unsealed roads in the shire. Fourth, the great majority of local residents, principally at Crescent Head, were strongly opposed to sealing the road, although I acknowledge a small number strongly supported it.

In light of that background, the decision to seal Plomer Road raised many eyebrows in the community. At the time many strongly criticised the mayor and the general manager for their decision-making process and their apparent dismissal of community concerns. Matters have now reached crisis point following a significant cost blow-out on the road upgrade from an estimated $555,000 to an actual $821,015. For a cash-strapped council that is a major concern as shire residents will now forgo much-needed maintenance on other roads as a result.

Just as concerning to the community is the council's handling of the overspend issue by sacking the Director of Shire Services, Keith Finnie, on 17 February. Both the mayor and the general manager denied any knowledge of the cost overrun. However, I have been given information that shows Mr Finnie advised the general manager last September of a significant overrun. Many in the community are saying that the mayor and the general manager have used Mr Finnie as a scapegoat, and it was their responsibility to constantly oversight council expenditure. I quote now from some letters to the Macleay Argus of 21 February:

I find it regrettable that Keith Finnie becomes the sacrificial lamb for the Point Plomer Rd development.
I am somewhat at a loss on how the general manager Allan Burgess and elected councillors can sit back and not realise that a council project is over budget—over budget by an amount in excess of $260,000.

What's even more incredible is that there is an apparent lack of accountability between staff at all levels.

How can a large organisation like the Kempsey Shire Council not have in place strategies to monitor expenditure? …

More heads need to roll, not just take the easy way out and blame Keith Finnie.

Another letter states:

It was not Keith Finnie who voted to tar Point Plomer Road, it was the council.

It was not Mr Finnie who pushed the tar sealing to be accepted, it was our mayor, and the other councillors …

On Wednesday, February 15 this council was in a state of emergency and still our mayor saw fit to be out of our Shire.

There was no leadership.

… this council should have an administrator or at the least a government inquiry into its mayoral and managerial administration practices.

Yet another letter states:

… I think they have 'got' the wrong person, and indeed I believe that the person in charge is where the buck stops.

General manager Allan Burgess and mayor Janet Hayes are the ones who should have taken the long service leave, that is the way the Parliament does it I believe.

Starting afresh would be a breath of fresh air.

Another letter in the same paper asks:

How could councillor Betty Green openly criticise council staff with her comment that "Our staff have let us down badly" (re the council dump), when the same council meeting of February 14 was told the General Manager's Performance Review Panel comprising mayor Janet Hayes, councillor Green and council's Human Resources manager Peter Garvin rated the general manager's performance for that review period as satisfactory … but then encouraged him to strengthen the internal reporting system …

Councillors Gribbin, Walker, and Saul have all been made to front the council's Conduct Committee, but then again, they don't always agree with the mayor's recommendations.

Those letters are from just one issue of the local paper. There are letters in subsequent issues as well. Today's paper carries news of a meeting of more than 100 council staff who a passed a vote of no confidence in the general manager and two other council managers. Allegations of bullying, harassment, foul language and breaches of the council's code of conduct were aired at the meeting. In addition to those matters there have been allegations of impropriety in relation to a waste contract, the construction of a customer service centre and a number of development approvals. It is clear that Kempsey Shire Council has lost the confidence of many in the community and of many of its staff. There is a clear and urgent need for an independent inquiry into these and other matters involving Kempsey Shire Council. I call on the Minister for Local Government to institute such an inquiry without delay. I am happy to provide the Minister with copies of documents in my possession when such an inquiry is established.

Mr JOHN MILLS (Wallsend) [5.59 p.m.]: Last night I had the great pleasure of attending a party to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Hunter Children's Research Foundation. The seven generous and terrific women on the board—Sandra, Natasha, Maree, Lorraine, Judy, Janelle, Dineane—were all present and I thank them for their outstanding work, as I thank their predecessors in the Hunter Children's Research Foundation. Speakers at the party gave great thanks to the Hunter community for their generosity in supporting children's research. This community partnership yields significant progress in child health research. The event sponsors deserve credit because they have been with the foundation for a long time. Last night they included the Australian liquor marketers Draytons Family Wines, Longworth and Goodwin printers, Tooheys Pty Ltd, Tyrrells Wines and Wests Leagues Club.

The money raised for the Hunter Children's Research Foundation stays in the Hunter and is used to establish new, and continue existing, research projects in such areas as asthma, cancer, cystic fibrosis, diabetes and sleep disorders. The main aim is to provide funds for much-needed research equipment for these projects. It helps employ research support staff and funds research grants for new and ongoing research. Of course, the types of illnesses currently being researched at John Hunter Children's Hospital can affect any family at any time. In 10 years the total funds raised has been $780,000, funding grants have been $680,000 and the remainder has been used for equipment purchases for the hospital.

Yesterday in the Newcastle Herald an article by Sarah-Kate Scicluna referred to the three Hunter women who established the foundation in 1996. A photograph showed my constituent Lorraine Gardner, who, with her friends Janelle Shakespeare and Maree Anderson, set up the foundation. They have been working hard for the past decade to raise funds for local research into children's terminal and debilitating illnesses. The very first event was held in 1996, a bus trip to the Hunter Valley which raised $800—a small beginning, but over 10 years, with a lot of continuing hard work, the foundation has grown. In that first year it also held a linen benefit evening, a charity bowls day, a trots night, a Rotary cricket day, the inaugural Blue and Gold Ball, which has been held every year as a major fundraising event, a Christmas in July dinner, a clubs triathalon, a Melbourne Cup lunch and Lotto for research.

The following year, together with the Lioness club of Maitland the foundation held an early season ball, a sports personality lunch, a race day, a Variety club bash, a Waratah Girls Choir concert and the launch of the Damien O'Dwyer research scholarship. Interestingly the Lilac Committee organised a Vice-Regal luncheon to support the foundation. The Lilac Committee was made up of wives of Labor members of this Parliament in the old days. The leader was Doreen Clough, the wife of Mick, the former member for Bathurst, and Barbara Gaudry, Margaret Martin, Anita Face, Elizabeth Price and my wife, Trudy. They got together to work with the Hunter Children's Research Foundation on that luncheon and its guest was Mrs Samuels, the wife of the then Governor, who is a wonderful woman with a very interesting career.

The following year a bridal fair was introduced to the range of fundraising ventures, also the first golf day, a "Models in the Making" show, housie, a breast cancer morning tea and a photo calendar. By 2002 the foundation launched Reach 200, which is a group of 200 local businesses and individuals that annually each contribute $200 or more, which equates to at least $40,000, for research for children in the Hunter. There are a few vacancies so I invite all honourable members, especially those representing electorates to the north and north-west of the State, to join Reach 200 to help the children's health research effort. I will provide honourable members with details. The foundation holds a ladies' luncheon series, a tai chi concert, movie premieres and so on and this year the fundraising events have already started.

The people who make up the Hunter Children's Research Foundation have put in a generous effort. One outstanding research project is the study of asthma in pregnancy and early childhood that is changing the way asthma is being treated all around the world. Congratulations to the Hunter Children's Research Foundation on 10 years of success.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [6.04 p.m.]: Over the past 12 months in particular all honourable members in this Chamber have become aware of just how angry Sydneysiders are about the lousy infrastructure this Government has been providing to the residents of Sydney and New South Wales—angry about getting nowhere in traffic, angry about the cross-city tunnel, angry about the snail's pace of our trains, angry about the late running of those trains, angry about the hot-houses that our trains have become, and also angry about the lack of a reliable electricity supply. A reliable energy supply, we say? Surely in 2006 every Sydneysider can expect a constant electricity supply. If only that were the case!

Let us look at one suburb that on a good day is only an hour or so away from this Chamber. Over the past 12 months Galston has had 15—yes, 15—power interruptions, the most recent a couple of Thursdays ago from approximately 4.30 p.m. until after 9.00 p.m. On lots of other occasions they have lasted for more than a day or so. Just when children were trying to do their homework on computers, parents were getting home trying to start dinner, workers were trying to buy a meal at their local shop, people were wanting to bank and shop, out went the electricity. This is happening all the time, and it shows the level of incompetence of this Government and how it affects ordinary, every day people, their lives and their businesses.

Galston has a great community bank, Bendigo Bank. Its manager is Bernie. The community likes face-to-face banking and its bank opens longer hours but there is no other bank nearby, so when power is lost and the staff have to do a trial balance, there is nowhere else for people to go. When the electricity is off the bank has to close—no money in, no money out! How does a black-out affect Peter the greengrocer? He has a back-up generator that will run his till but not his lights, so customers do not enter his shop. He sells a terrific range of yoghurts, many of which my family and I have enjoyed, but last Thursday, thanks to a black-out, he had to throw out $600 worth of one yoghurt product. He suffers not only when black-outs occur but also when brown-outs occur, which is when less than 240 volts are available. That causes his refrigerator motors to burn out and also affects the 50 or so fluorescent tubes in his shop. On average, one dozen tubes burn out each and every month, which is ridiculous.

What about Craig the butcher? He has a back-up generator that will run his cash register and scales. When a blackout occurs he cannot mince his meat or make sausages. He has to keep the meat freezer closed. His display has about one hour's worth of shelf life, and of course, during a blackout he has very few customers because they do not have electricity in their own home, or in their oven in particular. He too lives in fear of approaching storms. How does it affect Kakada, the local chemist, and her customers? Vaccines require refrigeration and during a blackout she has to take them home. Her advanced computers store vital customer information but when the power is finally restored after a blackout she cannot reboot her computers in her medium-sized business; she has to bring in a technician, at great cost and inconvenience to her and her customers, to get the software and hardware up and running again.

What about Game Farm, which is one of the largest employers in the Galston area? Scott Evans and Karl Fraser run a really efficient business that employs many people. It has a $15,000 generator that improves things and makes a difference but not enough, as still half of its staff has to go home early because they have nothing to do during a blackout. Again that affects the local economy of the Galston district. What about the hairdressers? Hairdressers stay open late on Thursday, which is their busiest day. In the middle of a colour and blow dry, bang! No electricity! People have to rebook for Friday night, which seriously inconveniences staff and customers alike.

All in all, it amounts to wasted staff time, loss of customers, spoiled food and burned-out equipment, which affects Galston dramatically. There was more than $50,000 worth of lost business. John Cordina and the chamber of commerce are incensed about this situation and they join me in calling on the Minister for Energy to get his act together and to fix this problem now. He should stop procrastinating and provide what surely is a basic service. This is what one would expect in a third world country, not a first world country. The electricity supply in Galston and in the Hawkesbury electorate is pathetic and a disgrace!

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [6.09 p.m.]: Tonight I advise the House of Rosebank Cottage, a building of considerable historic importance to the people of Liverpool and cherished by many with an interest in our built European heritage. It is located in Speed Street, Liverpool, and is owned by Liverpool City Council. It is described as a "two-storey intact Italianate Victorian residence". A contract for its construction was issued in 1882 and the construction was completed in 1893. It has been subject to a number of uses over the years. The building was designed by Varney Parkes, the son of Henry Parkes. It has two storeys, with a tower on its east side. It also has a steep hipped roof, with a bull-nosed veranda roof. A two-storey structure with flat roof sheeting was added to the western elevation in the 1950s.

Speed Street was engulfed by multistorey unit development in the 1960s and 1970s, and council purchased the property to prevent it going the way of so many other elements of Liverpool's built European heritage. A great deal of research has been done on the house by Judy Pack, the President of the Liverpool and District Historical Society. With this history, you would expect Rosebank Cottage to be a showcase for the area, carefully cherished and looked after by council. Regrettably, that has not been the case. Two weeks ago I received a telephone call from concerned constituents who live next to the building. They were concerned that squatters had moved in and were causing potentially serious damage to the house. They were also concerned at the possible fire risks. At the time one resident spoke to me on the telephone, the front door of Rosebank Cottage was wide open.

I subsequently inspected the premises and it was quite a tragic sight. Frankly, it looked derelict and abandoned, as though no-one cared about the building. Half of the pickets on the front fence were missing, the grass looked as though it had not been mowed for three weeks and parts of the garden clearly were overgrown. At the back of the building, up against one of its walls were a mattress and a couple of upturned milk crates. This is almost the antithesis of how you should treat a heritage building—and this despite the $50,000 of State Government heritage funding granted to the council for the building and despite its heritage listing. The responsibility of this situation is spread but, obviously, council bears a primary responsibility because council is the owner of the property.
I recently spoke to the council administrator, who advised me that she has issued instructions to secure the premises, remove the mattress and other associated detritus, and to generally try to pay a bit more attention to the property. It is also going to be kept under regular review. That is something that I welcome. However, the responsibility is broader than just the council. It is agreed by everyone that significant expenditure is required for the building. Council, recovering from the financial catastrophe that was the Oasis development, looked for a private sector entity to take over the management of the property. Into this juncture last year slipped one Frank Mosca. He is a well-known architect and developer's consultant in the Liverpool area. He has many development applications considered by Liverpool council.

Mr Mosca also featured prominently—one might say notoriously—in the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] inquiry into Orange Grove. Honourable members might recall that Mr Mosca was one of the people who turned up at midnight at the home of the then Minister Craig Knowles. He apparently thought that was an appropriate way of lobbying a State Minister. He also turned up the next morning with Krispy Kreme doughnuts. I would direct the attention of honourable members to the illuminating comments about him at pages 72 to 75 of the ICAC final report. The report casts doubt upon Mr Mosca, and refers to "another troubling feature of Mr Mosca's statutory declaration" and "the uncanny resemblance" of his declaration to that of another witness. Aspects of his evidence are regarded as "difficult to explain", "potentially very troublesome", "particularly troublesome", "selective" and "troubling".

As to his evidence about the midnight and dawn visits to the Minister's house, the ICAC said, "The most charitable description of this evidence is that Mr Mosca did not understand or appreciate its serious implications." The final comment in that section of the report talks of the possibility that, "The material contained in Mr Mosca's statutory declaration was false and produced only for the purpose of achieving some political advantage in the light of the rejected application." I cannot understand why, in light of this, the council would want to enter into a relationship with Mr Mosca at all. However, on 21 March last year Liverpool council agreed to enter into a lease over the property that is Rosebank Cottage to one of Mr Mosca's companies. The lease was said to be going to be for 40 years. Originally it had been proposed for 99 years.

The expressed hope was for Mr Mosca to restore the premises and then allow it to be used by a child sexual abuse service, and the lease to Mr Mosca's company would cost $1 a year. The Daily Telegraph in March last year had the perfectly accurate headline, "Historic House for $1 a Year". Twelve months later the lease has not been signed. Negotiations of various sorts have been conducted and Mosca clearly has not been happy with the deal he had extracted—although I would have thought $1 a year for a house is probably not a bad deal. I assume what has happened is that Mosca has discovered he was not going to make the money out of it that he thought he would make and that is why nothing has happened. The result of this is that Rosebank has fallen into its current state of disrepair. Last night Liverpool council withdrew the lease arrangement with Mosca. I welcome the decision unreservedly. Whatever the building's future is I urge council to prevent it ever again falling into its present condition and I suggest council chooses its potential partners far more carefully in the future.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [6.14 p.m.]: I raise an issue that I have raised on previous occasions in the House. I shall update the House of my concerns in relation to the overdevelopment of Chatswood central business district [CBD]. For years the community has requested an upgrade to the Chatswood railway station, which we are relieved to note is currently taking place. However, the Chatswood community and the broader Willoughby electorate have been asked to pay a high price for having what we regard as a necessary upgrade to the railway station. As the Houses is aware, as part of the State Government arrangements there will be the construction of three towers in the vicinity of the railway line, one in excess of 40 storeys high. This will mean 500 extra units in an already bustling CBD, which already has traffic management issues, infrastructure issues and other associated concerns.

I have highlighted my concerns about these issues on the record previously. I now reiterate my concerns, given the correspondence I have received from constituents, particularly in recent weeks during the construction phase. I highlight my absolute concern about the behaviour of the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation [TIDC]_or, should I say, lack of action on the part of TIDC_to address the many concerns my constituents have raised in relation to the transition period during construction. For example, there is a medical centre adjacent to the former Chatswood interchange, which previously had access by way of escalator and elevator. Now the only access to the medical centre is by the stairs.
Many local residents have used the medical centre over a number of years. The doctors at the medical centre and the patients are at their wits end. People in vulnerable situations—those who may be elderly or very ill—are required to negotiate a number of stairs. On a couple of occasions there have been near tragedies. The doctors have informed me that on one occasion they had to involve the police rescue service to come and assist a patient because the ambulance stretcher could not negotiate the stairs. On another occasion a young woman with appendicitis had to be walked down the stairs to be put in the ambulance and transported to hospital. Such situations should not arise. It is up to TIDC, as the responsible authority, to ensure that resident safety and amenity are not disrupted unnecessarily.

I have heard TIDC's arguments about the legal dispute in relation to access by lifts, but I do not buy it. I am unimpressed by the lack of action. I wrote to TIDC about three weeks ago and it was only after it was chased up by my office that we got a response. The Chatswood community and the broader Willoughby electorate deserve far better treatment than they are receiving with regard to major issues relating to access and safety. I refer also to ongoing concerns that have been expressed by the Chatswood RSL Club in relation to the memorial garden and the proposal for a kiss-and-ride area along one side of that garden. Local residents are concerned about the future impact on the garden and the retention of its sacred and historic significance.

I have also had local residents expressing concerns about temporary arrangements relating to bus stops and especially about schoolchildren in the vicinity of the construction area. I call upon the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation to give an assurance that it has done its research. A RailCorp report that came out last year commented on the safety and viability of units in the vicinity of railway stations, but we have yet to hear whether TIDC has reported in relation to Chatswood in particular. I reiterate that the Chatswood community is relieved that finally it will have an upgrade of its station. We understand that during the transition period of construction there will be some hiccups and inconveniences. However, we do not accept TIDC's total disregard for major concerns raised by residents during this period and its total failure to respond to urgent access and safety issues.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [6.20 p.m.]:



Tonight I inform the House of the crisis enveloping the mental health system in New South Wales, and particularly as it relates to rural areas. I express my delight that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health) is at the table and that the shadow Minister for Mental Health is present in the Chamber. I know the passion that both share on this particular issue. I convened a meeting at my office on 14 February that was attended by my colleague the honourable member for Northern Tablelands and representatives from local police, the Anglican Counselling Service [ACS], Lifeline, the Tamworth Mental Health Support Group, Tamworth Homeless Men's Support Group and a parent of a mental health patient. The meeting concluded that a collaborative approach by all mental health groups in the New England north-west was the only way to address the current crisis in the system.

Health has long been an issue of concern in this State, and it is one that I and fellow Independents are aiming to address to allow people in country areas the same quality of health care as their city cousins. Health concerns rate as the number one issue worrying country residents, and for good reason. There is currently a nationwide shortage of health professionals in the system, and nowhere is this shortage felt more than in the country. Waiting times for specialist treatment often stretch out beyond the 12-month mark, and many residents are forced to travel great distances just to see a general practitioner. While health is an issue that affects all of us directly at some point in our lives, mental health can also have an indirect effect on many of us, through either a friend or family member suffering from a mental illness.

Figures provided by the Anglican Counselling Service in Tamworth indicate an alarming rise in patients presenting with various forms of psychological distress. In 2003-04 and 2004-05 about 7 per cent of the service's clients were treated for mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, personality disorders, self-harm and suicidal behaviour. In July-August 2005 in Tamworth, 12 per cent of new clients presented with the same issues. More alarmingly, these figures have risen dramatically in the past few months. From September 2005 to February 2006, 21.5 per cent of new clients presented with mental health issues, with the majority being referred by health practitioners. Statewide, as a result of psychological distress, around 7 per cent of adults are totally unable to perform their usual duties for one or more days each month, costing the workplace an estimated $2.8 billion per year.

Reverend Brian Kirk of the ACS attended the meeting, and raised concerns about the service's ability to adequately treat clients given the limited amount of resources and funding at their disposal. While the service charges clients who can afford to pay for treatment, Reverend Kirk pointed out that many of their clients are on below-average incomes, with 54 per cent living on $300 per week or less, and 91 per cent receiving an income below the national weekly average, so the service's ability to recoup costs is very limited. Training of staff is another issue for the service, as constant training is required to keep abreast of growing mental health treatment and strategies. This forces the service to fund travel and study leave to areas of learning outside Tamworth.

While the ACS provides a fantastic service for the north-west and New England areas, it simply cannot meet the demand with its current level of resources, and more people with mental illness will suffer and go untreated as a result. This is a situation facing all of the mental health providers in the electorate of Tamworth, and it was made clear to me that the system is indeed in crisis. Government funding is inadequate, and services are not being properly co-ordinated to address the shortfalls. As a result, the groups that attended the meeting agreed to form a sort of alliance, where they will be addressing the areas of concern and working together for a resolution. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands and I will be actively working with these groups by raising the concerns in Parliament, offering solutions and urging action by the State Government to alleviate the crisis. The Independents' Rural Health Strategy addresses many of these issues, such as offering incentives for health workers to accept employment in rural areas to alleviate staff shortages. A major contributor is a lack of co-ordinated transport so people can access services.

Judging from the concerns raised at the meeting, there needs to be a radical overhaul of the mental health system in regard to infrastructure as well as access, as in many cases both are non-existent in the country. To meet the growing problem of mental illness, emergency services are continually called upon, impacting on their response times to other emergencies. Oxley Local Area Command Superintendent Tony Jefferson provided a valuable insight into the situation facing police in the Tamworth area. He said there had been about a 30 per cent increase in incidents of violence or erratic behaviour where the police who attended recognised that the incidents involved mentally ill people. In most cases police are required to transport a mentally ill patient for treatment, and this creates a significant drain on their resources. Police should not be the first point of access for people suffering from mental health problems. Proper infrastructure needs to be put in place to assist the mentally ill, especially in our smaller towns, as unfortunately this area of need and demand on resources seems almost certain to continue to grow.

Miss CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah—Minister for Housing, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health)) [6.24 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Tamworth for raising this matter and for his support of people who suffer from a mental illness. I put on record that we have agreed to a meeting with the honourable member to address his specific issues. However, I place on record that this Government has increased funding by 141 per cent. Many of the issues that the honourable member touched on relate to work force issues in the country—an issue across Australia. The Premier has pushed for that matter to be put on the Council of Australian Governments agenda. We are anxiously awaiting the national action plan, which I believe will include measures to encourage general practitioners to take up positions in country areas, as that is the gateway to accessing mental health services. People with mental illnesses visit their general practitioners for other illnesses, and in this way provide a means of early intervention and direction to services. We need to build on the capacity of our general practitioners.

We also need to build up our work force and training, as was outlined by the honourable member. We are dealing with those issues. The money is there for beds. We have rolled out 300 beds over the past few years, and another 300 beds are to come on line. As Minister for Housing, might I say that we also have a successful program called the Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative, by which we provide the stock and Mental Health provides the support in the community to keep people well. We have seen a 90 per cent reduction in the 700 people that we house presenting to inpatient units. The other matter I want to address is the rural mental health strategy, which is being rolled out across rural New South Wales. It will all but eliminate the involvement of police in providing mental health transport services. The Government is committed to making changes and to fixing the problems. It has done a lot of work over the past few years. However, we have a long way to go. I look forward to working with the honourable member for Tamworth to address not only his local concerns but the concerns that we have statewide and nationally.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [6.26 p.m.]: Last year the Department of Education and Training conducted a review of central schools in the State. Ostensibly, this was to explore the "uniqueness" of K to 12 schools and investigate issues such as resourcing and staffing levels. With the results of that review still pending, it is timely to look at the experience of central schools in the electorate of Dubbo. There are eight central schools remaining in the Dubbo district, and without exception they all do a wonderful job. Last week I had the good fortune of witnessing the outcome of that superior education when I attended the induction of student councillors at Trundle Central School.

Over the years this extraordinary school has suffered a relentless decline in student numbers. Years ago it had 200, then 150, then 121. Today the student population hovers around 100. This decline is in no way attributable to the standard of teaching, but rather to the changing fortunes of rural communities. Sadly, there is a veritable graveyard of long-gone schoolyards. About 25 schools have closed in the Trundle district; many of them shut their gates in the late 1940s and 1950s, with the last doing so in the 1970s. Most closed as communities became more connected and bus services improved. The central schools that remain are integral to the future success of their communities.

Unless there is an appreciable improvement in staffing levels and resourcing, I fear that more families will drift away, further undermining the long-term survival of these towns. This is more than a shame; it is a tragedy. These bush schools have an extraordinary record of achievement. Honourable members might wonder how much a student body hovering around a hundred or so can really achieve. Well, I will tell you. At Trundle Central 94 per cent of students sitting the year 7 standardised English and Literacy test were rated high or proficient. In the numeracy test it was 88 per cent. Only two students from the school sat the Higher School Certificate, but it was enough to get the school mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald top 200. That is pretty impressive—and it gets even better!

Out of a primary student population of 36, 10 qualified for the western region swimming trials, eight qualified for the western region cross-country trials and six qualified for the western region athletics trials. Three of the western region tennis team hail from Trundle Central. It may be hard to grapple with those statistics. One might think that there is something in the water out that way, but, as we all know, water is in short supply in these areas. Let us simply put it down to latent talent, an extraordinarily dedicated staff and robust community support. Indeed, with the emphasis on parental choice in education these days it is a wonder there is not a convoy of sport utility vehicles from Sydney to Trundle right this minute.

My question to the Government is this: Do we really want to lose the enthusiasm, spirit and success of these extraordinary bush schools? There is no doubt that the current staffing formula forces central schools in my electorate into impossible situations. Instead of being staffed to fulfil statewide curriculum goals, they are straitjacketed into a formula based on student numbers. One wonders how a school with fewer than a dozen teachers, and with responsibility for students aged five to 17, is expected to meet all that is required of modern education. The result of this short-sighted approach is obvious. Geography teachers are heading music classes, art classes are non-existent, and teachers are forced to take on a huge list of extracurricular activities for which they are not trained, paid or particularly passionate.

Central school teachers diligently prepare subject lessons for their own specialty, fill gaps in other subject areas and step up for duties such as emergency care, band practice, occupational health and safety, debating, scholarships, book club, cleaning rosters, playground duty and much more. Dedicated teachers in other schools might do one or two of these duties. In central schools, taking on an extra workload is crucial. When we finally see the results of the education department's review I hope that we will see a more compassionate and sustainable staffing and resourcing formula. Central schools in country towns like Trundle, Tullamore, Peak Hill, Yeoval and Tottenham offer hope. Watching the small wave of a child heading off to school in the morning speaks of the new generation, continuity and a certain future. It says that there are fresh faces, new ideas and dreams, and those same shared values, to take up when they leave off.

That same sense of continuity will be experienced by today's students when, in years to come, their children grab their packed lunches, kiss mum and dad goodbye and walk through the gates for that first day at a central kindergarten. I hope that they have the experience of watching their own children being educated in their communities by teachers who are resourced to make a difference. I hope that the success of central schools today, doing much with little, will not lead to a further squeeze when the Government considers how best to educate these and future generations of country children. I return to my recent visit to Trundle Central School. The school principal, Rupert Grech, plays a mean bass guitar and was jamming away with the student band when it launched into the great blues classic "Can't Complain" and, like another classic, they "Ain't Complainin'". They ought to but they are not. Someone should though, and I am doing it for them.

Private members' statements noted.

[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Marie Andrews) left the chair at 6.31 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr JOHN WATKINS (Ryde—Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport) [7.30 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Air Transport Act 1964 currently requires all air operators flying passengers between one location and another within the State to hold a licence granted by the Minister for Transport. This provision is mandatory and captures all air charter operators as well as providers of regular air transport services. Accordingly, every air charter company operating within New South Wales is required to hold an air charter licence. Similarly regional airlines must hold a licence for each and every intrastate route that they serve. All licences have a common expiry date of 29 March 2008. Licensing policy protects operators serving the smaller end of the New South Wales intrastate airline market from competition, by granting exclusive licences. Currently there are 24 of these exclusive route licences and collectively they account for approximately 25 per cent of passenger volume of the intrastate market. The remaining 75 per cent of the market is accounted for by another nine routes: Sydney airport to Albury, Armidale, Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Port Macquarie, Tamworth, Wagga Wagga and Williamtown.

These nine routes are open to competition in that no restriction is placed on the number of licences issued. However, operators of the open routes currently are required to be licensed and pay licence fees. These routes are not deregulated, nor can they be under the existing legislation because of the mandated licensing requirement. The bill will abolish the mandated licensing and associated fees for both air charter companies and intrastate airlines flying the open routes to remove the burden of red tape and cost on those operators. The other intrastate airline routes will continue to be licensed, to serve the public need by fostering interest by regional airlines in maintaining or entering air links to smaller rural and regional communities. The question of what routes should be exclusive in future will be determined, as is currently the practice, by the Minister. That question will need to be addressed by the Minister in the lead-up to the licence expiry date, as would be the case with or without the proposed amendments to the legislation.

The bill also leaves the established State and Federal aviation roles unaltered, with the Commonwealth regulating all aviation safety and security, and the State regulating operator access to intrastate routes within the national competition policy framework. It should be emphasised that there are absolutely no aviation safety or security issues raised in the bill. Safety and security in the aviation industry remains the responsibility of the Federal Government. For administrative efficiency, licensing functions will be vested in the Director General, Ministry of Transport, and there will be an appeal provision, absent from the Act in its present form, making any disputed matters reviewable by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The current practice of allocating exclusive licences by competitive selection processes will continue to be required under national competition policy.

The Air Transport Council will be replaced with a more relevant State Aviation Working Group. The council determines licence fees, which the bill will abolish. Otherwise the council is an advisory group whose role has been diminished by removal of licensing restrictions on the open routes and the evolution of standard licence conditions. It lacks representation from interest groups such as local government and the airline industry, and these groups will be included on the State Aviation Working Group. The bill also prevents any ambiguity arising that might allow charter operators to provide a regular service. The existing Act defines the service level where a charter becomes a regular service as "a service conducted on 5 or more occasions within any period of 28 days over that route". In one case a tour operator proposed circumventing the provision by organising multiple charter companies operating over the same route. The Crown Solicitor advised that, while there is considered to be no ambiguity, it would be desirable to preclude any possibility of an argument of ambiguity arising. The bill does this and, in doing so, merely reinforces the provision in the Act to ensure charter companies provide charter services, not regular services.

Under current licence conditions all airlines are required to submit quarterly passenger statistics for each route, whether open or exclusive, to the Ministry of Transport. To facilitate monitoring of the intrastate airline industry in this State, it is important to continue collecting these statistics on all routes in the future, and provision is made for doing this in the bill. Some eight years ago, in response to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal findings, the Government introduced the Air Transport Legislation Repeal Bill 1998, which would have abolished the whole Act. The 1998 bill was referred to the Legislative Council's Standing Committee on State Development, which tabled an interim report in September 1998. The key recommendation was that a decision on deregulation be deferred until the committee could investigate further the impacts of air service deregulation on small rural communities.

There were 10 other recommendations, all relating to the State needing to urge the Federal Government to maintain access for regional air services to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, a matter which has since been pursued on many occasions. The 1998 bill subsequently lapsed following the 1999 election. The 2005 bill fundamentally is different from the 1998 bill because it addresses the possible impacts of air service deregulation on small rural communities by continuing to license and regulate air transport services to those communities. At the same time, the 2005 bill abolishes unnecessary licensing and associated fees on air charter companies and regional airlines serving the major regional centres, which clearly no longer need to be regulated, and updates other aspects of the existing legislation as explained in this second reading. I would like to thank members of the Ministry of Transport and my office, in particular Laura'lee Koulouris for her work in bringing the bill to this point. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr JOHN WATKINS (Ryde—Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport) [7.38 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to implement the Government announcement in January that the land tax threshold for the 2006 land tax year would be increased from $330,000 to $352,000. This measure will make land tax fairer and simpler, and exempt thousands of mum and dad property investors from paying land tax this year. Increasing the threshold provides a $53 million tax cut for New South Wales' taxpayers and means that an additional 12,700 investment property owners will not pay any land tax this year. This brings the number of investment property owners who paid land tax last year, but who will not pay anything this year, to 390,000.

The 6.7 per cent increase in the tax-free threshold matches the average increase in the value of land subject to land tax, as determined by the independent Valuer General. The $330,000 threshold initially set for the 2006 land tax year was based on no increase in land values. Because values have been assessed by the Valuer General to have increased, the Government has responded quickly to adjust the threshold. This Government believes in sensible taxation along with providing essential services which, as we all know, would be slashed if the Coalition was ever to win government in New South Wales. These taxes fund health care, social security, welfare services, transport, education, and public order and safety. Over the past five years the growth in expenditure across these areas alone has exceeded $9 billion.

In the 2005-06 budget, the Government announced a fairer and simpler land tax system. This system reinstated a single land tax rate of $100 plus 1.7 per cent of the land value above the threshold.

For example, if a liable property has a land value of $400,000, the tax payable would be 1.7 per cent on the $48,000 above the $352,000 threshold, plus $100. In this instance the tax paid would be $916, a reduction of $684 on the previous system. The new single rate replaces the previous three-tiered tax scale that applied in the 2005 land tax year. As a result of the Government's actions New South Wales remains more than competitive compared to other jurisdictions. New South Wales now has the second highest tax-free threshold in the country, dwarfing those of Victoria at $200,000, Western Australia at $130,000 and South Australia at $110,000. New South Wales also has one of the lowest top marginal land tax rates in the country, well below States such as Western Australia and Tasmania at 2.5 per cent, Victoria at 3.5 per cent and South Australia at 3.7 per cent.

Principal places of residence and land used for primary production will remain exempt from land tax. These two exemptions are the most well known but it may interest the House to learn that many other groups are granted land tax exemptions in New South Wales, including the following: boarding houses for low-income persons; retirement villages; child care centres; friendly societies; sporting clubs; community land development; non-profit societies, clubs and associations; charitable and educational institutions; and public gardens, recreation grounds and reserves. In addition, property owners will still have the option of gaining a 1.5 per cent concession on their land tax bill should they decide to pay the total amount owed by the due date, rather than in three instalments over a longer period of time.

The reforming of the land tax system, including the increase in the tax-free threshold, is another example of the Iemma Government's determination to keep the New South Wales economy strong. Combined with the abolition of the vendor duty, the 5 per cent cut in workers compensation premiums and, most recently, a $90 million payroll tax package for businesses setting up in employment priority zones, the increase in the tax-free threshold is more evidence of the Iemma Government's commitment to a vital New South Wales economy that is open for business.

The payroll tax measure was but one of a range of measures announced by the Premier on Thursday 23 February. Other initiatives include a four-year $2.5 billion public sector savings plan, building on $395 million in savings in IT and property outlined in last December's budget review; a $13 million boost to increase the ability of the Department of State and Regional Development to drive investment and job creation in New South Wales, and major reforms that will streamline the State's planning system, ensuring the economy remains competitive. This will cut zoning bottlenecks and delays and in so doing slash red tape for major developments. The bill is another sensible taxation initiative from a Government committed to further strengthening the NSW economy. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms SANDRA NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, Minister for Women, and Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development) [7.44 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes the revocation of approximately 1,000 hectares of the Bargo State Conservation Area at Hill Top in the Southern Highlands and vesting that land as part of the corporate lands vested under the Sporting Venues Management Act 2002 in the name of the Minister administering that Act, namely, the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation. Also included in the bill is an amendment to the Sporting Venues Management Act 2002, the main variation being to amend schedule 1 to incorporate the land being excised from the Bargo State Conservation Area. The Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation will develop the site as the Southern Highlands Regional Shooting Complex. The State conservation area land to be revoked is presently under the care and control of the Minister for the Environment, the responsible Minister for the National Parks and Wildlife Act. In outlining these proposals, I am doing so with the full agreement of my colleagues the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Lands who have been consulted on the draft bill.

The Hill Top rifle range is presently an existing range located in the Bargo State Conservation Area. It comprises a single 800-metre full-bore range. It is licensed from the National Parks and Wildlife Service Division, Department of the Environment and Conservation to the Southern Highlands Rifle Club until 2008. Six other clubs in the region will be consolidated to operate at this new facility. The location of recreational and competitive shooting sites is, reasonably, a matter in which the community has a high interest. Large tracts of land are needed to allow for the varying shooting disciplines, including surrounding safe areas and configured land improvements to capture stray projectiles. It is important that the shooting clubs continue to be provided with access to safe and well-regulated sites.

Consistent with the objectives of the States Shooting Club Development Program, one significant means of providing infrastructure support is through the development of regional shooting facilities and through consolidation of ranges that are threatened by urban encroachment or environment issues. This approach also provides long-term security of tenure for shooting clubs. It is sound policy to bring the various shooting disciplines together in appropriate sites. Well-governed regional committees can oversight, manage and promote their sport in a controlled environment and in accordance with lease, firearm licence and compliance requirements. Bringing multiple shooting clubs and disciplines together frees up or reduces demand for other large tracts of land for shooting facilities. It also provides greater levels of certainty for shooting clubs whose current tenure is not secure and provides options for clubs whose current sites may not be appropriate.

Discussions facilitated by the Hon. John Tingle MLC to identify a suitable site to establish a regional shooting complex were held with a number of government agencies and the key shooting club stakeholders in the Illawarra, Shoalhaven and Southern Highland areas. Seven clubs expressed interest. They are the Southern Highlands Rifle Club, Illawarra Regional Shooting Association, Illawarra Service Rifle Club, Kiama-Albion Park Rifle Club, '74' Pistol Club, Phoenix Pistol Club, and Illawarra Branch, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. The present Hill Top rifle range site was identified as having the best potential to be developed as a regional shooting complex for these clubs. The proposal is to develop the existing 800-metre full-bore range by providing an additional rifle range 500 metres by 100 metres, and a pistol range 50 metres by 100 metres, along with basic infrastructure facilities. These disciplines cannot be conducted on the current full-bore range.

Funds for the regional shooting complex development have been allocated through the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation's Shooting Club Development Fund. The total site would allow future development possibilities to incorporate other shooting disciplines. In terms of conservation values, the site for the proposed regional shooting complex supports primarily sandstone vegetation communities that are well represented in the vast reserves that surround Sydney. A large part of the site, approximately 80 per cent, will remain vegetated and will act as a safety envelope for the shooting complex once it is established. Vegetation clearance should not disturb glossy black cockatoo habitat or individual plant specimens.

In respect of native title issues, the Crown Solicitor has advised the Government that the bill before the House needed to vest the land in a relevant body in order to be valid under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. The proposal to vest the land under the Sporting Venues Management Act satisfies the requirements for validity under the Commonwealth Act, and the right to negotiate regime in the Commonwealth legislation will not apply to the vesting. The bill therefore provides that native title rights and interests existing in relation to the land detailed in the schedule immediately before the revocation or reservation are not extinguished.

My colleague the Minister for the Environment can assure the House that the Department of Environment and Conservation carefully considers all alternatives to the revocation of land and their merits before revocation of land from a reserve may be considered. To offset the excision from the Bargo State Conservation Area, the bill proposes to reserve certain Crown land to establish a new Bargo River State Conservation Area and the Yengo National Park. A further addition of the Crown land currently leased to the Illawarra Regional Shooters Club will also occur to the Dharawal State Conservation Area via gazettal action at a subsequent point. The total yield of Crown land to the State conservation reserve will be approximately 2,831 hectares, well compensating the loss from the Bargo State Conservation Area.

The Minister for the Environment is able to confirm for the House the conservation benefits that the compensation package will provide to the State. I offer this advice on his behalf to the House. Firstly, the package includes a Crown land area of 552 hectares that comprises part of the Mellong Swamps, an in-holding to the Yengo National Park on the Putty Road. This site is a longstanding reserve proposal due to its unique wetland features and value as a fauna habitat. The site had been identified as a possible option to relocate the Phoenix Pistol Club from the Scheyville National Park. The club, however, participated in discussions about establishing a regional shooting facility and is now committed to being part of the Hill Top regional shooting complex. This leaves the Mellong Swamps area available to consolidate within the Yengo National Park.

A second parcel of Crown land, 1956 hectares, will be provided to allow for the establishment of a new park to be called the Bargo River State Conservation Area. This area provides a crucial stepping stone in the ring of reserved lands around Sydney, linking the Nattai and Blue Mountains national parks to the metropolitan water catchments in the east. They include the headwaters of the Bargo River and part of the Bargo Gorge system that supports several species of threatened flora and fauna. This addition is part of the Government's Circle of Reserves initiatives. These two additions to the State's conservation area holdings will be achieved via the bill. A third addition will be achieved through gazettal once the Southern Highlands Regional Shooting Complex has been completed.

The Dharawal State Conservation Area contains extensive areas of upland swamp and is considered to have high conservation value for its biological and catchment protection values. The proposed addition is a Crown land in-holding of 323 hectares within the existing State conservation area. Conservation groups have been lobbying for a number of years to have this parcel of land added to the reserve and it has been a longstanding commitment of the Government. This Crown land is currently leased to the Illawarra Regional Shooting Association for the development of a rifle range.
The association has withdrawn its development application for the site and will relinquish its lease, concurrent with the development of the Southern Highlands Regional Shooting Complex. It will become a welcome partner in the regional shooting complex at Hill Top. When this land becomes vacant Crown land, it will be available for gazettal under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as an addition to the Dharawal State Conservation Area. This will achieve a long sought after and most welcome upland swamp addition to this conservation area.

The Minister for Lands has endorsed the proposal to transfer the three parcels of Crown land I have just detailed to the jurisdiction of the Minister for the Environment for administration as additions to the State conservation areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. I am advised that the Department of Environment and Conservation has carefully considered the revocation and offset compensation package and confirms that the proposal is consistent with the principles detailed in its revocation of land policy. That policy requires that the compensatory land should be of greater size than is the area of land to be revoked, have similar conservation values and, where possible, be adjacent to the reserve where land is being revoked. The compensatory lands are nearly three times the size of the excision and have very high conservation values, and two-thirds are adjacent to the Bargo State Conservation Area.

Additionally, the proposals have been presented to the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Committee and the Sydney South Regional Advisory Committee. They support the bill and requested appropriate land management initiatives be implemented. Ongoing management of the site will be a high priority for the department and the leaseholder. The Government will require that when the Southern Highlands Regional Shooting Complex is constructed, a Range Management Committee—equally representative of all users—is established to plan, co-ordinate and manage the site. A lease will be negotiated, in consultation with the Department of the Environment and Conservation, between the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation and the established Range Management Committee.

One of the responsibilities of the committee will be to work with representatives of the Department of the Environment and Conservation to prepare a land management plan. The plan will need to identify the site's natural and cultural values, any threats to those values, and appropriate management actions for the site. This bill seeks to achieve a positive outcome for recreational shooting in the Illawarra and Southern Highlands areas that will bring together, on one site, shooting facilities and ranges within a defined regional area, consolidated into a single site.

It is equally significant that the bill will yield three highly significant and long-anticipated additions to the New South Wales conservation reserve system. This includes two diverse and productive wetland areas within Dharawal State Conservation Area and the Yengo National Park, and a key regional corridor link joining the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to the southern water catchments and through to the Victorian border via the Morton National Park. I thank all those who were involved in preparation of the bill, especially members of my department and members of my staff who assisted in its preparation. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Planning, Minister for Redfern Waterloo, Minister for Science and Medical Research, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)) [7.58 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill. The bill will amend three Acts to achieve important planning objectives, which include reducing delays and costs in the assessment of development applications, helping to co-ordinate local and State planning controls, and ensuring the timely and efficient supply of infrastructure and services to support growth and development in land release areas and other important sites.
This Government has undertaken the biggest overhaul of planning laws in 25 years, slashing red tape on development and encouraging jobs and investment in New South Wales. This bill is the next logical step in our program of planning reforms. When it comes to planning, the State is well advanced in putting its own house in order. In 2005 considerable changes were made to the way that State significant projects would be assessed. Changes included reducing the number of planning instruments into a single State environmental planning policy, removing the need for up to 15 different approvals and licences, to be replaced by one assessment and approval, handing back responsibility for hundreds of smaller decisions to local councils, and introducing concept approvals and independent hearing and assessment panels.

These changes demonstrated the Government's determination to take decisive action in ensuring that major projects in New South Wales can be assessed and determined in the most efficient and robust manner. But only about 400 major development and infrastructure projects are determined by the Minister in one year, while councils in this State are faced with 300 times that number. In New South Wales 152 councils deal with approximately 125,000 development applications [DAs] that are lodged every year. That is an average of 340 DAs a day. While most councils do a good job in dealing with these pressures, a small number do not. The State cannot stand idly by when some councils repeatedly fail to make timely and reasonable planning decisions. Good planning and environmental outcomes do not require interminable processes and delays. This bill is part of the Government's ongoing work to ensure that there is greater certainty and efficiency within all levels of the planning system.

I will now turn to each component of the bill. The bill expands the existing provisions for planning administrators and provide a new power to appoint planning assessment panels. These amendments will help the Government respond to community concerns about council performance in planning and development. One of the biggest concerns relates to increasing delays in the assessment of development applications by councils. Councils are meant to process most DAs within 40 days. In 2001-02 one-third of New South Wales councils took longer than 40 days on average and the worst performing council took an average of 116 days. By 2003-04 40 per cent of councils failed to meet the 40-day deadline. The worst performer took an average of 159 days. These delays create significant costs for developers and to the community in general.

There are also significant concerns with excessive legal expenses being incurred by many councils in relation to planning and development costs. The legal bill for New South Wales councils jumped by 40 per cent to over $33 million in the two years to 2003-04. In 2003-04 one council spent over 50 per cent of its planning budget on legal expenses. This is taking ratepayers' funds away from councils' other priorities. The misuse of planning controls also raises concerns. Some councils ignore development standards to approve inappropriate development, such as large waterfront houses that contravene development controls. Other councils refuse appropriate development, despite compliance with development controls and endorsement from council officers. Other councils inappropriately subdivide prime agricultural land for rural residential development, resulting in the loss of important farming land, which we need to sustain our economy.

There are also concerns about councils' local environmental plans [LEPs]. There is evidence that some councils have prepared LEPs to rezone land solely on the basis of requests from developers rather than the consideration of proper strategic planning work. Other councils have failed to prepare LEPs as directed by the State Government, while others have prepared LEPs that are too prescriptive, out of date or with insufficient regard to the correct process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The bill will make it easier to address situations like these. If a council is failing in its planning and development responsibilities the Minister for Planning will be able to appoint a planning and assessment panel to perform the council's functions. Panels will be an additional option for intervening in local development and will only be used in exceptional circumstances.

Panels may be used instead of or in addition to planning administrators, which the Minister can already appoint in certain circumstances. Panels will help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local decision-making without having to bring developments into the State assessment process. This should reduce requests to the Minister to call in developments as major projects under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. There have been a substantial number of these requests in recent times. Planning assessment panels will consist of three to five people with skills and knowledge in planning and development matters and may include representatives from the local community and/or the local mayor. Panels will have procedures to ensure they are accountable for their activities. They will be able to perform a council's consent authority role or its role in preparing environmental planning instruments. Panels will be subject to the Minister's direction and control in all of these roles, except in the determination of development applications.
The bill will allow the Minister to direct councils to submit reports on their performance. My department will consult with the Local Government and Shires Associations and other relevant stakeholders on the development of a performance reporting system for DA assessments and other relevant matters. This system will acknowledge that while most local DAs should be dealt with within one to two months, some DAs can be controversial or complex and require detailed assessment and considerable consultation. Any reporting system will need to reflect these variations and will enable the Minister to reach an informed view on a council's performance. It will also enable a targeted and practical response if performance is unsatisfactory.

The bill provides that panels may be appointed in a range of other circumstances, which include if a council has not complied with its obligations under the environmental planning legislation, if the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] recommends the appointment because of serious corrupt conduct by a councillor, or if the council agrees to the appointment, because some councils may themselves recognise that they need assistance. The bill also clarifies and expands the Minister for Planning's existing powers to appoint planning administrators. The Minister may already appoint a planning administrator if a council does not comply with its obligations under the planning legislation or if the ICAC recommends it. The bill provides that, as with panels, a planning administrator may also be appointed if a council is performing poorly or if the council agrees. Administrators may perform any of a council's functions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

If a planning assessment panel or administrator is appointed, the Minister will be able to specify matters that must be administered, along with their priority. This will enable the Minister to target the panel or administrator's work to particular areas. For example, a panel could be appointed to look at large-scale development or to assess applications that have not been determined after a certain period of time. The bill also includes provisions to ensure that panels and administrators have sufficient resources and powers to be effective. The Minister will be able to direct councils to provide panels or administrators with staff and facilities. It will also be possible to make regulations regarding the appointment of staff or the payment by the relevant council of the panel or administrator's costs. The bill also provides that a penalty may be imposed if a councillor or a council staff member obstructs a panel or administrator.

I now turn to the bill's amendments to strengthen the Government's ability to deliver infrastructure, amenities and services in new land release areas and other areas where there will be co-ordinated growth and development. In such areas, developers may undertake intensive, simultaneous development. This creates a need for councils and the State to concentrate funds to ensure that infrastructure and amenities are available to complement such development. The bill will ensure that communities that are established as a result of such development are supported by appropriate and timely services and facilities. The amendments will allow the Minister to specify areas where infrastructure and services must be delivered hand in hand with development.

In these areas the State Government will be able to raise a development contribution, known as a special infrastructure contribution. Special infrastructure contributions will be collected in special contributions areas, which will initially consist of land in any growth centre declared under the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974. These areas will be listed in a schedule to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which can be amended at any time to create, amend or repeal a special contributions area. The Minister for Planning will set the nature and level of special infrastructure contributions. The level of each contribution will reflect the cost of providing infrastructure, services and amenities in an area. The Minister will consult with the Treasurer if the cost of a particular infrastructure item exceeds $30 million.

The contribution may also be a percentage of the cost in respect of development or a class of development. As with section 94 contributions, developers will be able to provide the levy as a monetary contribution, works in kind or by dedicating land. The State Government may spend special infrastructure contributions on the capital and recurrent cost of public amenities and services, affordable housing, transport and other infrastructure, as well as environmental conservation. Importantly, the bill provides that special infrastructure contributions may be spent on the provision of infrastructure outside a special contributions area, but only if the infrastructure and amenities provided arise as a result of development within the special area. This is necessary to provide sufficient legal certainty that special infrastructure contributions can be used by the State Government to provide infrastructure outside the locality of a development, such as public transport or environmental offsets that are required because of the development within a special area.

The ability to use special infrastructure contributions for infrastructure beyond the boundaries of a special contributions area is an extension of existing arrangements. These already enable the Minister to fund regional infrastructure through environmental planning instruments that require satisfactory arrangements for infrastructure to be reached before the development can proceed. Usually, developers meet the satisfactory arrangements test by entering into a planning agreement, but these existing measures may not be sufficient to meet all of the infrastructure needs in some areas. For example, planning agreements are most effective for large parcels of land owned by one or only a few owners. They are cumbersome when land ownership is fragmented, such as in the land release areas. Reliance on negotiating planning agreements could delay the provision of infrastructure.

Special infrastructure contributions will be in addition to contributions that may be levied by councils under section 94 or section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. They will be collected only when it is reasonable to impose an additional levy because of the extent and urgency of the area's infrastructure requirements. For example, special infrastructure contributions will be collected for the major infrastructure and services needed in the north-west and south-west growth centres. In those areas, immediate and significant infrastructure expenditure will be required. Special infrastructure contributions will provide the Government with a secure source of funds to provide infrastructure at the right time and in the right sequence. This is about planning for growth in a more effective way, especially in areas where public services and amenities are needed before residents and businesses start moving in.

The bill also prevents the imposition of section 94 contributions for the same purpose as special infrastructure contributions. This will prevent any double dipping for the same infrastructure and services, and ensure that the combined total of local and State contributions in these special areas is fair, balanced and reasonable. In special contributions areas it will not be possible to raise fixed development consent levies under section 94A of the Environmental Protection and Assessment Act, or to enter into planning agreements, without the consent of the Minister for Planning or the relevant development corporation, nor will it be possible to levy contributions for affordable housing, under section 94F of the Act, in the special contributions areas. This is because special infrastructure contributions may be used to fund affordable housing.

Special infrastructure contributions will be imposed as a condition of consent by the Minister, or by another consent authority at the Minister's direction. This means that councils will be able to collect special infrastructure contributions along with their own section 94 and section 94A contributions. This means that councils can collect development contributions, on the Government's behalf, using the streamlined and efficient system that councils and the development industry have used for many years. In the event that a council neglects to impose a special infrastructure contribution as a condition of consent, the Minister will be able to impose the condition on the council's behalf. In addition, a consent authority will not be able to modify a condition requiring the payment of a special infrastructure contribution, unless the Minister approves the change.

A Special Contributions Areas Infrastructure Fund will be set up to receive and distribute special infrastructure contributions. That fund will be administered by the director general of the Department of Planning in consultation with the Secretary of NSW Treasury. Deposits into the fund will include monetary special infrastructure contributions, the proceeds of the sale of any land dedicated as contributions, any money appropriated by Parliament and the proceeds of investing the fund's money. The pooling of contributions in the fund will enable the Government to take advantage of economies of scale in providing infrastructure. Payments from the fund will be permitted only for public authorities that provide infrastructure or for administrative purposes.

The ability of the fund to pay public authorities for providing infrastructure is an important change. This is because it will allow special infrastructure contributions to be transferred directly to the relevant body that has, or will, provide infrastructure. For example, funds for roads can be provided directly to the Roads and Traffic Authority, funds for hospitals can be provided directly to NSW Health and funds for environmental conservation can be provided directly to the Department of Environment and Conservation. While this makes sense, the Act does not currently allow contributions to be transferred like that.

It will not be possible to appeal to the court against the nature and level of special infrastructure contributions, or against a condition of consent that requires the payment of a special infrastructure contribution. This is necessary to ensure the security of funds for essential infrastructure. Challenges can delay the flow of contributions and, if successful, affect the State's capacity to provide infrastructure. It is important to note, however, that the bill requires the level of special infrastructure contributions to be reasonable, having regard to the cost of infrastructure required as a result of development. Also, nothing in the bill affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals. This means that a person may still have an action to initiate in the Supreme Court, for example, based on a matter of administrative law.
I now turn to the proposed amendments relating to contributions plans. Contributions plans must be prepared by councils before they can collect development contributions under section 94 or section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The bill will enable the Minister to direct a council to make, amend or repeal a contributions plan within a certain time. The Minister will also be able to make, amend or repeal a contributions plan on a council's behalf if it does not act as directed, or if the council agrees. To help the Minister determine whether to intervene in a contributions plan, the bill also requires councils to submit a copy of each contributions plan as soon as practicable after it has been approved by council.

These amendments will help ensure that contributions plans are in place to complement the timing of development. They will also help co-ordinate infrastructure provision between neighbouring councils and with development corporations. They will maximise efficiencies in the use of contributions by enabling funds to be pooled and applied progressively to different purposes, and they will prevent contributions being used for inappropriate purposes, and ensure a reasonable total of local and State contributions. It will not be possible to appeal to the Land and Environment Court against contributions determined under a contributions plan if that plan is made or amended by, or at the direction of, the Minister.

The bill also excludes appeal rights against the process for making, amending or repealing a contributions plan by, or at the direction of, the Minister. This will help secure the certainty of funds so that important infrastructure programs can be implemented. It will also prevent councils being challenged on matters that are beyond their control. As with special infrastructure contributions, the bill does not affect the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The bill also contains amendments relating to development control plans [DCPs]. The amendments will enable the Minister to direct a council to make, amend or revoke a DCP. If the council fails, or is unable, to act as directed, the Minister may make, amend or revoke the DCP. This reinforces recent legislative initiatives to streamline planning controls and introduce greater certainty for communities and developers. The Minister's ability to intervene in a DCP will also introduce greater certainty. At present, the Government prepares regulatory impact statements when it introduces new regulations. However, councils can introduce new development standards without the same level of analysis. This means that councils can use DCPs to introduce onerous and inappropriate controls without sufficient public scrutiny and, at times, in conflict with other planning and development objectives.

The community expects the Government to prevent councils from implementing regulatory requirements that have not been properly analysed. However, at the moment, the Government is powerless to do that. The amendment will allow the Government to act to prevent adverse outcomes of inappropriate regulatory controls. For example, a council's DCP may be amended because it conflicts, or prevents compliance, with government policies. I am aware of a recent example where a council implemented a DCP that circumvented nationally agreed building standards. These amendments may also help ensure consistency in development controls across council borders as the new sub-regional and regional strategies are developed.

The bill contains further amendments to support the provision of infrastructure and services in growth centres. These changes will amend the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974 to require a development corporation to submit an annual statement of business intent for the approval of the Treasurer and the Minister for Planning. The statement will set out the corporation's business plan for the year ahead, including its objectives, proposed activities, performance targets and accounting policies. It will also set out the corporation's proposed activities in relation to special infrastructure contributions. Development corporations may also be required to submit occasional reports on other matters. Those changes will ensure better accountability for development corporations and assist the Government to monitor and approve arrangements for the timely and co-ordinated provision of infrastructure and amenities in the growth centres. While a minor change, I note that the bill enables the Minister to appoint a chief executive of a development corporation that is not the director general of the Department of Planning.

I now turn to some amendments to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004. That Act includes provisions relating to major projects subject to part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. These provisions relate to the delegation of consent authority functions, development contributions and the application of the Heritage Act. However, development that is not subject to part 3A will also occur in Redfern-Waterloo. Therefore, the bill will extend these provisions to development subject to part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, that is, development worth less than $5 million. These amendments are consistent with provisions in the bill that were inadvertently amended by the planning reform legislation last year. The Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act allows the Minister for Redfern Waterloo to sub-delegate approval and consent authority functions to the authority or the City of Sydney Council. The bill will also enable these functions to be sub-delegated to an employee of the authority. While minor, these amendments will enable the efficient and expedient assessment of development applications.

The bill also amends arrangements for consultation with the Heritage Council regarding the alteration of any item on the State Heritage Register. Currently the Minister must consult the Heritage Council before determining that a proposed alteration is necessary. At present the Minister cannot delegate this function. This is not a practical or efficient means of rejuvenating Redfern-Waterloo. The bill will therefore allow these consultation and assessment functions to be delegated. This will not detract from the existing arrangements for consultation, assessment and decision-making on heritage matters.

The bill also clarifies the Minister's powers of land acquisition regarding Crown land. Currently the Act only permits the authority to acquire Crown land vested in public authorities. However, some Crown land is vested in the relevant Minister, and a Minister is not generally considered a public authority. Therefore the bill clarifies that the Minister administering the Crown Lands Act 1989 may transfer the ownership of Crown land within the Redfern-Waterloo Authority's area of operations to the authority.

The amendments also expand the public authorities from which the Minister is empowered to acquire land to include government departments, state-owned corporations, statutory bodies, public authorities and chief executives officers as defined by the Public Sector Management Act. This will help prevent any limitation to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority's ability to achieve its objectives to revitalise Redfern-Waterloo. It should be noted that the amendments do not extend the authority's powers to acquire lands vested in a council. Finally, the bill makes some consequential amendments relating to special infrastructure contributions.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill comprises a range of practical and reasonable measures designed to improve efficiency, promote consistency and further streamline planning and development. The Government is a strong defender of the role of local government in this State. New South Wales councils provide important services to ratepayers and employment for 40,000 people. However, the State should not stand idly by when some councils repeatedly fail to make timely and reasonable planning decisions. Delays in particular have been creeping up in some areas and this is causing frustration on the part of residents wanting answers on simple home renovations, and investors who want to create more jobs and prosperity for New South Wales.

Council development applications are the building blocks of our economy. The Iemma Government wants more building and less blocking by councils. That is why these reforms are necessary, and we make no apologies for continuing this push to cut red tape, improve efficiency and create a sound basis for business and investment in New South Wales, while at the same time ensuring that our environment is developed in a sensible, co-ordinated and balanced fashion. I commend the bill to the House.

Debated adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY (Menai—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.25 p.m.], on behalf of Ms Reba Meagher: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will implement the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children in New South Wales. This convention is more generally known as the Child Protection Convention. The Child Protection Convention is one of a number of Hague conventions, including conventions on adoption and child abduction, which aim to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in the twenty-first century world in which national borders are more open than they have ever been before. The measures proposed in the bill will be of significant benefit to Australian families, and in particular to children who are the subject of international child protection litigation. Australia ratified the Child Protection Convention on 1 August 2003 with the support of all States and Territories.

Since 2003 the convention's international child protection measures have been administered in Australia through the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975. It has always been the intention that each State and Territory would also put in place its own legislation to implement these measures in its jurisdiction. The bill will put in place jurisdictional laws in relation to children who cross international borders where parenting orders or child protection concerns exist for the children. It will also establish a framework for co-operation between child protection convention countries to ensure the protection of children.

The Child Protection Convention confirms in its preamble that the best interests of the child are to be a primary consideration. This reflects the same guiding principle of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The fundamental purpose of the bill is to strengthen our ability to protect New South Wales children. During the last part of the twentieth century, the opening up of national borders, ease of travel, and breaking down of cultural barriers have brought many advantages but, sadly, have also increased risks for children. Trafficking and exploitation of children, displacement through war, terrorism, civil disturbance and natural disasters have become major problems.

Children can be victims in broken relationships between transnational families with disputes over custody, relocation, contact and the potential of international parental abduction, just as can occur for children who never leave this State. The legislation will enhance the protection of children and their property. It does this by determining which country's laws are to be applied in particular circumstances, while allowing for emergency protection measures to occur wherever the child is present. The absence of agreed rules at an international level has led to authorities in one country failing to act because they assume authorities in another country will take, or have taken, responsibility for the child. The New South Wales legislation seeks to overcome these difficulties and simplify the process of resolving international child protection cases without losing sight of the best interests of the child.

The objectives of the bill are to determine which country has jurisdiction in decision making to protect the child in order to eliminate potential conflicts of jurisdiction between authorities in different countries, determine which law is to be applied, determine the law applicable to the parental responsibility, provide for recognition and enforcement of protection measures, and establish co-operation between the authorities of New South Wales and other Child Protection Convention countries in the interests of protecting children.

After ratification of the Child Protection Convention by Australia in August 2003, the Commonwealth Government passed legislation to enable the Family Court to register and enforce child protection orders in Australia from convention countries. Built into the Commonwealth legislation were roll-back provisions which provide that once State legislation is enacted, that legislation will prevail. This recognises that child protection matters are traditionally State responsibilities and more properly dealt with in State-based specialist children's courts.

The mechanism for those with parental responsibility to register orders in the Family Court in relation to family issues such as residence, maintenance and contact will be maintained as part of a flexible response, because they are accepted as Federal responsibilities. The New South Wales legislation will, in common with the Federal and other state legislation, clarify responsibilities and eliminate conflict in jurisdiction between Australian courts and foreign courts in child protection cases. It is based on the model Queensland legislation. The model legislation was approved by all the parliamentary counsels around Australia, the Standing Committee of Attorneys General and the Community Services Ministers' Committee.

The bill's enactment will ensure that the key benefits of the Child Protection Convention are enshrined in New South Wales legislation. These include clarification of responsibilities and the elimination of conflict in jurisdiction between New South Wales and overseas courts in child protection cases, the recognition and enforcement of foreign orders in New South Wales, ensuring recognition and enforcement abroad of New South Wales protection orders and other measures of protection where appropriate, and providing mechanisms for authorities in New South Wales and other countries to co-operate in relation to protective measures for a New South Wales child abroad or in relation to a child returning to another country who is subject to a New South Wales protective measure.

As with legislation in the other States, it will define the role of the New South Wales Central Authority under the Child Protection Convention. This role will be to find solutions for the protection of particular children; assist in implementing measures whether made here or elsewhere which are directed at protecting children; give consideration to initiating action in New South Wales, at the request of a competent authority of another country if a response is required in New South Wales; exchange information, subject to confidentiality and privacy laws; provide information on laws and services; help locate children; provide reports on the situation of particular children; and apply to the Children's Court or Family Court as appropriate for orders in response to requests from competent authorities of Child Protection Convention countries to transfer or receive jurisdiction, or take measures directed at protecting the person of a child.

The New South Wales legislation substantially replicates the Queensland model legislation and expands on the Queensland provisions on two minor points. First, the bill defines the term "interested person" in relation to a child who is the subject of a "measure of proceedings". Whereas the model legislation leaves this term undefined, the bill provides that an interested person means the child, or a parent, or a grandparent of the child, or any other person concerned with the care, welfare or development of the child. Any of these people may apply to be joined as a party to proceedings arising from an application to exercise the court's jurisdiction in relation to the child or to refuse recognition of a foreign measure. An interested person may also take proceedings in a New South Wales court to enforce a registered foreign measure. The inclusion of this definition makes it clear who can be involved in proceedings relating to a child and is equivalent to those people who can seek a variation of a care order under section 90 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.

Second, the bill will provide a mechanism whereby the Director-General of the Department of Community Services can obtain relevant information necessary to prepare a report required by the Child Protection Convention on the consultations undertaken prior to child being placed in foster care in a convention country. The Child Protection Convention requires that these consultations occur with the competent authority in the convention country. The measures in the bill will overcome jurisdictional confusion that has arisen. Normally, State child welfare laws gain priority over family law orders but, according to the rules of the Child Protection Convention, if a New South Wales care order conflicts with a foreign child protection order registered under the family law amendments, the Family Court order prevails.

By permitting registration in the State Children's Court the usual order of priorities can be maintained. The bill mirrors the Queensland model legislation in that it empowers the Children's Court to supplement foreign personal child protection measures with domestic care orders. The recognition of a foreign protection measure without modification may not necessarily ensure the safety, welfare and wellbeing of the child or young person due to different circumstances in this State. In some circumstances it may be appropriate only to recognise and register part, rather than the whole, of a foreign child personal protection measure. Once jurisdiction requirements have been satisfied, the bill gives to the Children's Court the full range of orders as if the original order has been made in this State. This will not only advantage the child but should assist in streamlining processes within the court and enhance familiarity with the operation of the legislation.

To give an example that has arisen in this State: A child arrived here subject to care orders made in the country of his birth. He was brought by the person exercising guardianship, who came for business purposes. The care orders required that the child reside in an institution while remaining in this person's guardianship. In the country of origin this was appropriate because there were child-centric institutions there. In this State we do not deliver services to children in that way and the implementation of those foreign orders, without modification, would have led to the child being placed in an adult psychiatric institution. There was no simple and effective way both to recognise the intent of the orders made in the child's country of birth and to provide appropriate services in this State. The bill will address this gap in our laws.

To better adapt the obligations of the Child Protection Convention for this State the bill brings into effect legislation mirroring that of other States, and legislation that has been jointly agreed to by the Commonwealth and the other States. While the Commonwealth will remain the key central authority for Australia in terms of being the primary recipient of international communication from foreign central authorities, the Department of Community Services will be the central authority in New South Wales. The department will be responsible for taking action in this State on behalf of children. At present the impact of this legislation in New South Wales will be small.

In general, international child protection cases arise infrequently. As well, while 18 countries have signed the Child Protection Convention, only eight, including Australia, have both signed and ratified it, and two have acceded. While information is not definite from all other countries, the best current estimate is that 27 countries will join in this arrangement in the near future. As more countries ratify the Child Protection Convention its benefits will be enjoyed by an increasing number of children in an era of increasing mobility across national borders. For children entitled to the benefits of the Child Protection Convention it is anticipated that New South Wales may be called upon to assist Child Protection Convention countries by providing a report on the circumstances of a foreign child located in New South Wales, or to provide the necessary protection services for a child subject to an order recognised in New South Wales.

The bill specifies the jurisdiction of courts and child protection authorities. The general order under the Child Protection Convention is that the country in which the child is habitually resident retains jurisdiction over the child's person and property. Generally, a New South Wales child protection authority may exercise jurisdiction only for a New South Wales person or protection measure in relation to a child who is present and habitually resident in New South Wales; or a child who is in New South Wales and habitually resident in a Child Protection Convention country where the measure is either urgent or provisional; or there is a request or agreement that New South Wales assume jurisdiction. Additionally, a New South Wales authority may exercise jurisdiction if a child is present in a Child Protection Convention country and is habitually resident in New South Wales or is wrongfully removed from Australia, or if New South Wales is requested to assume jurisdiction.

Other additional circumstances where New South Wales may exercise jurisdiction are where the Child Protection Convention country agrees; or a child is present in New South Wales and is a refugee minor living in the community; or if the child is habitually resident in New South Wales but at the moment is present in a non-Child Protection Convention country; or is habitually resident in a non-Child Protection Convention country but is an Australian citizen; or is present in New South Wales and is habitually resident in a non-Child Protection Convention country. New South Wales child protection authorities may accept or reject a request to assume jurisdiction. The bill also sets out the circumstances under which a New South Wales authority may exercise jurisdiction for a New South Wales property protection measure in relation to a child. In those cases the Public Trustee will be appointed as guardian of a child's property should that be necessary under a property protection order.

The bill provides for the recognition and enforcement of foreign protection orders. These are not automatic. On receipt of a foreign measure a New South Wales authority has several courses of action open to it. These are laid down in the legislation. The grounds for refusing to recognise a foreign person or protection order are also spelled out and provide New South Wales authorities with the discretion to meet their obligations. These grounds include: that the Child Protection Convention country lacked jurisdiction for taking the measure; that the Child Protection Convention country acted contrary to the fundamental principles of New South Wales law when it took the measure; that recognition of the measure is contrary to public policy in New South Wales; that there would be no appropriate way of enforcing the measure; that the measure is incompatible with a later measure in the country where the child habitually resides; and that the measure places the child in care in New South Wales but the Child Protection Convention country has no consent from New South Wales authorities.

These measures are likely to affect only a small number of children in the short term but the legislation provides a framework that is likely to benefit an increasing number of children and so, I believe, will become vital to ensuring the safety and protection of New South Wales children wherever they might be in the world, and of other children who are in New South Wales and need protection. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.40 p.m.], on behalf of Mr Bob Debus: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Fines Amendment (Payment of Victims Compensation Levies) Bill amends the Fines Act 1996 to authorise and validate the collection of compensation levies from inmates' prison earnings and put the enforcement of compensation levies under the Fines Act 1996 beyond doubt. The Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 requires everyone convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment to pay a compensation levy. The levy is $70 when the person is convicted on indictment and $30 otherwise. The Act also provides for that money to be paid into the Victims Compensation Fund, from which compensation under the Act is paid to the victims of acts of violence. The purpose of the compensation levy is to force those persons who commit criminal offences to make a personal contribution to the compensation of victims of crime. The levy is additional to the restitution that an offender is required to pay when the offender's victim receives compensation under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996.

The enforcement of compensation levies from prison earnings is very important. Regulation 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 previously authorised the deduction of compensation levies from the prison earnings of inmates. Section 80 of the Victims Compensation Act 1996 that permitted such a regulation to be made was repealed when the Fines Act 1996 commenced, and a compensation levy was included in the definition of a "fine". The effect of the repeal of section 80 of the Victims Compensation Act 1996 appears to have been that Regulation 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 was impliedly repealed, but this was not recognised at the time.

The entire Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 later lapsed under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989. Compensation levies, however, continued to be deducted from inmates' prison earnings in accordance with established procedures. This bill inserts section 18 into the Fines Act 1996. This is similar to Regulation 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 and will ensure that compensation levies can continue to be deducted from inmates' prison earnings. Compensation levies are defined as "fines" for the purposes of the Fines Act 1996, and the Act allows the State Debt Recovery Office to enforce fines imposed by courts. The State Debt Recovery Office enforces compensation levies against offenders who are not imprisoned and this money is paid into the Victims Compensation Fund.

It has been suggested that a compensation levy payable under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 might be construed as not being "imposed by a court". The bill inserts new section 4 (2A) in the Fines Act 1996 to provide that a compensation levy is taken to be a fine imposed by a court. This will put the enforcement of compensation levies under the Fines Act 1996 beyond any doubt. Schedule 3 of the bill validates the past collection of compensation levies, provided they could have been collected if the provisions of the bill were in force. This is consistent with the purpose of the levy, requiring those persons committing criminal offences to make a personal contribution to the compensation of victims of crime. It is both in the public interest and in the interest of victims that this bill be passed to validate the past collection of compensation levies from inmates' prison earnings under the Fines Act 1996. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.45 p.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Fisheries Management Amendment Bill makes a number of minor changes to the Fisheries Management Act 1994. Its primary focus is on improving administration of fisheries management, particularly in the areas of licensing, the issuing of endorsements, the levying of annual charges and contributions, and the reporting of fishing activity. The amendments build on those made in 2004 and represent subtle adjustments, where necessary, rather than broadscale changes. A key theme of the bill is to ensure consistency in administrative arrangements across the share management, restricted fishery and charter boat fishery frameworks, where possible.

Before I proceed to detail its key aspects, I emphasise that the bill contains a range of enabling or discretionary rather than directive provisions. It largely qualifies or extends existing regulation making powers and ensures consistency with provisions already enacted. Where new regulations, including share management plans and supporting plans, are required to give effect to the provisions of the bill, there will be a statutory consultation, and I anticipate this will occur in coming months. The majority of provisions relating to share management, restricted fisheries and recreational charter boat fishery will not be commenced until the regulations to which they refer have been drafted, consulted on and revised where necessary.

There are a number of management advisory committees and advisory councils established under the Fisheries Management Act that represent commercial and recreational fishing, conservation and Aboriginal interests in our commercial fisheries and the charter fishing boat industry. I can inform the House that the relevant management advisory committees were consulted on aspects of the bill and any issues raised have been carefully considered during drafting. The Seafood Industry Advisory Council was also consulted on the amendments in this bill, and members were given a briefing and update at their meeting in September last year. The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the advisory council were also given an opportunity to review the detail of the bill. While there has been consultation on the bill, more significant consultation will follow this year as we work through the detail of the regulations.

I now turn to the specific amendments. First, I refer to those relating to the commercial fisheries management framework. Commercial fishing in New South Wales is now, in the main, managed under arrangements known as category 1 share management. Share management provides industry with ongoing security of access, encourages greater stewardship of the resource and enables more effective management. Under share management, fishing business owners are issued with tradeable shares and operate within the requirements of statutory fishery management plans. Fishing business owners have a major role in ensuring the future of their industry and are integral in developing the fishery management plans.

Many of the amendments to the Fisheries Management Act facilitate the final stage of share management for our key commercial fisheries—that is, the implementation of share management plans and the issue of final shares in 2006-07. A commercial fishing licence authorises a person to take fish for sale in New South Wales. However, in restricted fisheries and share management fisheries, fishing activity can occur only in accordance with an endorsement. An endorsement is a form of statutory authorisation that allows a fisher to participate in a specific fishery, to use a certain type of fishing gear, harvest a particular species or fish in a specific region.

Several provisions within the bill relate to the issue and holding of endorsements, the ability to revoke, vary or add conditions attached to an endorsement, and the recording of particulars of endorsement in the share register. Items [9] and [13] of schedule 1 to the bill relate to the holding of endorsements by shareholders or their nominated commercial fisher. Endorsements are currently listed on each individual's commercial fishing licence and the historic system for changing endorsements between the shareholder and their nominees is bureaucratic and cumbersome. It requires a licence to be returned to the department, amended and reissued.

The share management plan regulations currently under development will provide a more flexible system for changing endorsement holders. Endorsements will be removed from individual fishing licences and placed on a card. Subject to any requirements in the management plan for a fishery, a licensed commercial fisher in possession of the card would be taken to hold the endorsement and be able to take fish for sale in accordance with the statutory management plan or other relevant instrument. The management plans will positively specify the circumstances in which shareholders can hold endorsements or nominate others within and across fisheries. The purpose is to ensure that there can be no dispute as to which fishing business a commercial fisher is operating on behalf of at any point in time. This is significant in terms of ensuring compliance with fishery rules, and particularly so when serious breaches in subsequent convictions could result in a loss of access to the fishery.

Items [11], [14] and [21] relate to conditions of endorsement in share management and restricted fisheries. Endorsements are already subject to conditions, as listed on each commercial fishing licence. These conditions reflect subtle management differences between endorsements authorising different activities, such as the use of nets or traps or the taking of certain fish species generally to reflect local conditions. A similar cumbersome process applies to changing conditions as applies to changing endorsement holders. For this reason, when they are required, endorsement conditions will be prescribed in share management plans. However, in limited circumstances an endorsement condition may need to be implemented immediately by notice in writing pending the necessary regulatory change. The new provisions in relation to endorsement conditions mirror those that already apply to conditions on commercial fishing licences under section 104 of the Act and on charter boat fishing licences under section 127C. Accordingly, an equivalent penalty of 100 penalty units applies to a contravention on an endorsement condition.

I now turn to the provisions relating to management charges and annual contributions. I must stress that this bill does not increase revenue collected via charges and contributions from those already subject to them, nor does it set the amount of any future charges or introduce new charges over and above those already in place. The Government is aware that the commercial fishing industry, like other primary industries, is under considerable financial pressure as a result of the drought, rising fuel costs and fluctuating market prices as well as longstanding structural problems. It is further acknowledged that some businesses are finding it difficult to pay the annual charges that help to support the sustainable management of their industry.

In the past 12 months the Government has assisted in relieving financial pressure on industry in a number of ways. In 2004-05 the fishery monitoring charge, a contribution to a monitoring program required by the environmental approvals issued under New South Wales and Commonwealth laws, was waived, saving the industry about $400,000. A new method for calculating the abalone community contribution, previously set at 6 per cent of the gross value of the fishery, has been introduced, passing a considerable saving to industry. The community contribution for the lobster fishery has been set at $112 per shareholder until 2008 instead of being calculated based on 6 per cent of gross value of the fishery. The annual lobster management charge has also been reduced.

Nevertheless, in a commercial environment it is only fair that all business owners pay their share of management costs. The department has given industry members additional time to pay their 2005-06 charges without any penalties and boat operators with legitimate financial difficulties will be treated fairly in line with government financial policies. The peak industry body, the Seafood Industry Advisory Council, has formed a number of working groups to help it focus on the key issues facing the industry. Amongst these are structural adjustments to help ensure the future viability of the industry, and the pricing and charging of industry for a range of government services. In the meantime, the bill makes sensible, practical and important changes to progress the shift from charging commercial fishing licence holders to charging fishing business owners as the owners of those statutory rights.

Firstly, the bill ensures that management charges and annual contributions are to be paid by the fishing business owners, the owners of shares and restricted fisheries endorsements rather than the licensed commercial fisher who fish under them and who, in some cases, are merely employees. Secondly, the bill, through item [17], requires payment of the management charge and annual contributions irrespective of whether the fishing business owner chooses actively to fish or to hold their endorsement in abeyance. Regardless of whether a fishing business or its endorsements are active, the owner holds saleable property rights and receives a benefit from activities such as management, research and compliance, which are funded by the charges and contributions. The existing provisions are inequitable because the full-time operators subsidise those who choose not to activate their business but could do so at any time, subsequently benefiting from any new management initiatives. This form of free riding encourages latent effort, which is acknowledged as a major problem in the industry.

Item [18] provides flexibility in the way the management charges are structured. It enables a single management charge to be payable for more than one share management fishery and for a single management charge to apply to a single fishing business, subject to the management plan adopting such provisions. This approach is consistent with the Government's position as indicated during the second reading speech relating to the 2004 Fisheries Management Act amendments—that is, the charging system should not penalise fishers for being diversified and, in fact, it should be capable of being structured so as to foster diversification. Item [20] repeals the existing provisions requiring payment of an annual contribution by commercial fishing licence holders, as opposed to business owners, under section 106. Commercial fishing licence holders will continue to pay licence fees. However, the costs of management, research and compliance will shift increasingly to owners of the property rights in the future.

Item [22] introduces an annual contribution payable in restricted fisheries, while item [26] introduces an equivalent annual contribution payable by the holders of charter boat fishing licences. Let me be clear that the annual contributions for restricted fisheries and the charter boat fishery will replace existing endorsements and activity-based charges. They will not be additional charges. Members will note that the bill reinforces that annual contributions are payable towards specific industry costs consistent with existing statutory provisions governing expenditure from the Commercial Fishing Trust Fund and Charter Fishing Trust Fund. Put simply, the bill makes it clear that revenue can only be collected for the purpose for which it can lawfully be spent.

A further amendment via item [16] corrects a drafting oversight related to the Commercial Fishing Trust Fund. Mandatory share forfeiture for non-payment of charges is a last resort and applies once all the normal debt recovery procedures have been exhausted. The sale of shares by public tender to recover outstanding charges has had limited application to date, but is a necessary instrument to safeguard revenue for effective management of our commercial fisheries. With the exception of the community contribution, all of the charges levied on shareholders are payable directly to the Commercial Fishing Trust Fund, as required under section 236 of the Act.

Erroneously, the original legislation overlooked this fact by requiring all revenue from the sale of forfeited shares to be paid only to the Consolidated Fund, even where shares have been forfeited to recover an outstanding amount that, had it been paid in the normal course, would have been paid into the Commercial Fishing Trust Fund and used for management purposes. As is appropriate, the amendments enable the Commercial Fishing Trust Fund to be credited following the sale of shares to recover outstanding amounts, excluding the community contribution.

I now turn to the amendments regarding the making, keeping and submission of fishing activity records. Commercial fishers and charter boat operators are already obliged to submit records on the quantity and species of fish harvested, the fishing methods and boats used. This generally occurs on a monthly basis, with some commercial catch data spanning over 50 years. The records provide a vital data source, which, along with other independent information, assists in the monitoring of our fish stocks and assists decision making. Fishing business and charter fishing boat owners therefore have an interest in providing accurate and timely records to the department.

Items [23], [24], [25] and [27] amend provisions relating to the making, keeping and submission of fishing activity records in the commercial and charter boat fisheries. Records confirming nil fishing activity or fishing activity that did not result in any catch are equally important as records of catch and are now specifically provided for in the legislation. These records can provide important information on stock availability. As with the other substantive provisions of this bill, the detail will be contained in the regulations. I can confirm that the regulations will not require submission of records by both commercial fishers or masters and fishing businesses. This would be unnecessary duplication. Rather, the principle is that the fishing business owners or charter fishing licence holder owners would be normally required to submit records to the director general in respect of their business. There may be some exceptions, for example in quota managed fisheries where this would be impractical.

Importantly, a commercial fisher or charter fishing master who fails to provide relevant information to their fishing employer will be committing an offence, as will the employer, if they fail to make and submit a record of fishing activity. The penalties have not changed. The bill also adopts consistent provisions with respect to the making, keeping and submitting of fish receiver records. Due to privacy legislation, catch records prepared by a nominated fisher or employed charter boat master cannot currently be released to the fishing business owner without their permission. While the future reporting requirements as just outlined will address this issue, further amendments are necessary to deal with access to historic information. Fishing business owners have a legitimate interest in knowing how much catch their business has generated, especially if they are considering selling or refinancing. Item [29] of the bill allows fishing business and charter fishing boat owners access to records prepared in relation to their business.

I will now deal with the balance of the provisions in the bill. A Share Appeal Panel has been established to hear appeals relating to the provisional issue of shares in the new category 1 fisheries. Item [35] introduces important amendments to the savings provisions relating to the Share Appeal Panel. These amendments are necessary to remove ambiguity as to the matters the panel is to hear to safeguard the intent of the original savings provisions and to ensure the appeals are efficiently and fairly dealt with.

When the Fisheries Management Act was passed in 1994 it was intended that each fishery would move directly from open access arrangements to a share management framework. Appropriately, the original share appeal provisions of the Act envisaged appeals to the Share Appeal Panel relating to catch history, a key component of the proposed share allocation criteria. During its first term, this Government, on the advice of industry implemented a restricted fishery framework, which relied largely on catch history to allocate endorsements.

A comprehensive and independent review process followed the issue of restricted fishery endorsements in 1997. It involved assessment of over 800 appeals by an independent panel established under the regulations between 1997 and 2000. Where appellants were not satisfied with the outcome of their restricted fisheries review they were able to appeal the decision to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, as was their right under section 126 of the Fisheries Management Act.

When the category 2 share management framework was incorporated into the Act in 2000 the significance of the comprehensive restricted fishery review process was not overlooked. Savings provisions were inserted into the Act to specifically exclude appeals to the Share Appeal Panel relating to the eligibility for restricted fishery endorsements and validated catch history where these could have been subject to a review request through that process. It was clear that restricted fishery matters were not intended to be reopened via the share appeal process and accordingly the existing savings provisions direct the panel to refuse to hear any such matter. However, the conversion from category 2 to category 1 fisheries in March 2004 has led to some ambiguity as to the application of the savings provisions as originally intended.

While the amendments may appear to be a significant redraft, they do not go beyond what was originally intended. They clarify the matters for which there is no appeal. They ensure the panel is not required to revisit matters that have already been exhaustively examined. This includes matters dealt with by earlier internal reviews and review panels over the past 10 years and which could have been the subject of appeals to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. As to current appeals that have been lodged with the Share Appeal Panel, of 1,257 fishing businesses, only 88 share appeal applications were received with respect to the allocation of provisional shares. This figure signals that the vast majority of applicants felt their shares had been correctly allocated and that catch history had indeed been already finalised. Importantly, these amendments will be commenced shortly after assent so that the Share Appeal Panel can proceed with the appeal hearings and complete the process without further delay or undue expense.

The independent Total Allowable Catch Setting and Review Committee makes determinations on harvest levels for specified species by commercial fishers, currently abalone and rock lobster. At the moment, the committee is required to call for public submissions before it makes or reviews a determination. Even if the review itself takes place soon after the original determination, a second call for submissions is required. The determinations usually relate to a one-year period and the existing requirement for a second round of submissions can result in undue delays and uncertainty as to the total allowable catch. The bill gives the committee some discretion as to whether a second round of public submissions is necessary but, nevertheless, ensures that the committee is to have regard to earlier submissions.

Item [33] makes a small change to the description of the ocean trawl fishery to provide for the use of a Danish seine trawl net. This legitimate fishing gear is used by a small number of commercial fishers and its use has been considered in the environmental impact statement and draft fishery management strategy for the ocean trawl fishery. The final amendment concerns the issue of permits for fish auctions for charitable purposes. Honourable members may be aware of the revenue these fish auctions provide to assist charities. Advice received indicates that an amendment of the section of the Act dealing with the issue of permits is required to allow for fish auctions. The issue of specific permits for this purpose is provided by item [5]. Implementation of these provisions will be subject to any advice arising from the recent bag and size limits review paper and from the New South Wales Food Authority.

It is already a specific permit condition that the permit holder must notify the Food Authority and the local fisheries office before undertaking a fish auction. Other permit conditions include that any fish caught must be kept on ice, the fish is suited for human consumption and that appropriate records are also kept for the fish sold at the auction. This bill covers some ground. The changes are not being made just for the sake of it, but to provide a fairer, more consistent and a much more efficient approach to the regulation of fishing activities. Overall, the aim of this bill is to make the Fisheries Management Act more efficient from an administrative and operational point of view. I strongly commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

The Clerk announced the receipt of the report entitled "Cross City Tunnel—First Report", dated February 2006.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr SPEAKER

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

1. That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on tobacco smoking in New South Wales, and in particular:
(a) the costs and other impacts of smoking,

(b) the effectiveness of strategies to reduce tobacco use,

(c) the effects of smoke-free indoor venues on the initiation and maintenance of the smoking habit,

(d) factors affecting initiatives for smoke-free indoor areas,

(e) the effectiveness of media, educative, community and medically based Quit initiatives,

(f) the adequacy of the budget for smoking control initiatives, and

(g) the Smoke-free Environment Amendment (Motor Vehicle Prohibition) Bill 2005 introduced by the Revd Mr Nile in the Legislative Council.

2. That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders of either House, the committee consist of 11 members, as follows:

(a) four members of the Legislative Council of whom:

(i) one must be a Government member,

(ii) one must be an Opposition member, and

(iii) Dr Chesterfield-Evans and Revd Mr Nile.

(b) seven members of the Legislative Assembly of whom:

(i) four must be Government members,

(ii) two must be Opposition members, and

(iii) one must be an Independent or cross-bench member.

3. That the members be nominated in writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly by the relevant party leaders and the Independent and crossbench members respectively within seven days of this resolution being agreed to by both Houses.

4. That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee, any six members of the committee will constitute a quorum, provided that the committee meets as a joint committee at all times.

5. That the committee report by 30 May 2006.

6. That this House requests the Legislative Assembly to agree to a similar resolution and name the time and place for the first meeting.

Legislative Council Patricia Forsythe

28 February 2006 Deputy-President

Consideration of message deferred.